> Spending money on marketing lowers prices by increasing volumes. Do you have any proof of this - had you said it increases profits - I'd have readily agreed

> Spending money on marketing lowers prices by increasing volumes. Do you have any proof of this - had you said it increases profits - I'd have readily agreed with you. > If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and then spend nothing on marketing and sell to 200,000 customers, they would each have to pay $5000 to fund the R&D. If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and two billion dollars on marketing and sell to a million customers, they would each have to pay $3000 to fund both the R&D and the marketing. Or, in line with their "fiduciary duty to shareholders", the company still sells at $5000 to a million customers: see Martin Shkreli, Epipens, or dozens of other real-life examples that prove your lower-price hypothesis wrong. Without competition, drug manufacturers have no incentive to lower prices when they can make more profits instead.