> So, we're back to someone withholding value that they could be providing to society. The point OP is making is that value to society and money are only loose

> So, we're back to someone withholding value that they could be providing to society. The point OP is making is that value to society and money are only loosely correlated. Sometimes it correlates well but often not so well. That’s because there’s externalities in any marketplace that aren’t captured by the marketplace itself. So in the presented hypothetical case, the externality of “provide life saving treatment” is not captured in the costs side of the drug company’s balance sheet, so treating 75% fewer people for 10x more per unit cost makes the company look even more financially positive even though the change is a societal negative. And this externality shift in the balance sheet need not be a conscious “evil” decision. It could simply be market dynamics and competition playing out with the players not even realizing that they’re just making money from an externality and not providing any benefit. Your argument that it’s the legal system is flawed on several counts: 1. The US (and many places) have regulatory capture so the legislation preventing future competitors is written by today’s competitors. So while it’s the law on one hand, it’s the current set of players that’s the real problem. 2. There’s no collective buying power in places where this is a problem (eg you don’t see the cost of penicillin being an issue in countries where single payer healthcare is a thing). We’re starting to see this with insulin where non profits and California are getting into the game, but it takes a while to ramp up production so even if the price does come back down, the companies involved have managed to make a lot of money in the short term at the cost of lives and financial health of many households.