Gaj wrote: 'Intellectual Property' isn't about innovation or creativity. It is the second word in the phrase which clearly defines what it is about. Ownership.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. As an artist, Intellectual property has kept food on the family the table. No question.
Generally speaking, and I have a great deal of experience in this area, any original idea or expression which has a commercial value or application will be copied.
Intellectual property laws exist to protect originators from those who would profit from the fruits of honest and arduous or inspired labor without paying a fair amount to the originators for their contribution.
Also generally speaking, the royalties to the creator of an intellectual property are typically a fraction of a percent to 5% to 10% of sales for mass distribution of the intellectual property.
Typically IP royalties are negotiated between IP owners and the IP distributors through their attorneys.
So, taking $11 Billion patent cost as a starting point, theoretically 12.1 billion plus 10% ongoing royalties on bulk sales to the patent owner would be a fair amount based on precedent.
One could reasonably negotiate and add in promotional, insurance, and other expenses to the equation, but the formula generally remains the same.
Presumably (allegedly), when Indian manufacturers negotiate with Gilead, pricing for domestic Indian markets are predicated on some version of this formula.
I have to think if Gilead can make a reasonable profit in India at $850, an unrestricted, unregulated, and unquestioned price of US$ 84,000 in the US, and in other 'first world" countries is not only criminal, but deliberately genocidal.