First, to clarify, the drugs itself are cheap to make, it's only a composition of chemical, what's expensive is the pharmaceutical's company sunked cost on RnD and they put it on the customer to break even (although nobody ever know what's the actual cost, they could have made an accidental founding that horse's sperm cures aids and claimed they spent billions). We can get Panadol (now a generic medication) for a quid these days.
There are incentives however, if you create a drug that creates cancer you'd probably still be rich. But without protection it'll be a fair game, anyone who can make the same drugs with lower cost can sell them to the public without patent issues. Not that patents are obsolete, but patents should be about brand and not the actual product itself. Copyright and patents has been scrutinized all these years and the courts still can't find the middle ground. For example, apple has patents for its brand, but they shouldn't just go around and suing people who makes a candy bar tablet phone just because they look alike. Appearance, performance, and appeal are very hard to determine whether they're new or a blatant copy.
I believe that in ideology level, protection on drug makers are supposed to benefit the society, but in the process it created a loophole for the pharmaceuticals company to exploit.
Is it the fault and flaws of capitalism? We should ask whether it's the ideology or the application that's at fault. There's no right / wrong, United can play the same 433 formation as Barcelona but without the right personnel we would look clueless while Barcelona won a treble. It's a combination of the correct system with the correct player. Now would you say that we're clueless because 433 sucks or because it's our players that's not as good as barcelona?
