There are also reported cases (not direct statements by the firms, but independent analyses) of pharmaceutical brands purchasing or paying generic producers to

There are also reported cases (not direct statements by the firms, but independent analyses) of pharmaceutical brands purchasing or paying generic producers to prevent a generic from coming or remaining online and competing. (Apparently, in some cases the number of and potential for generic producers is limited enough to make this cost effective for the pharmaceutical brand.) These firms have been granted limited monopolies in return for their contribution to the public good. Apparently, this is not enough for them. As a member of the public, I'm disinclined to offer them anything further, and rather in favor of re-evaluation this cost/benefit relationship with the suspicion that thorough independent analysis may well indicate the public should "claw back" more of this monopoly benefit we've been granting. Patents are a social convention. Not an inherent law. Society is, with sufficient will, free to re-evaluation them. Just as "public domain" may and does override private ownership for cases demonstrating sufficient benefit to the public good. (Not that imposition of "public domain" property seizure isn't its own nest of contention and problems. But as an example of another domain where this is already accepted law.)