It's no moral stretch to say that if society pays tax to provide police and courts to enforce intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals to encourage production of pharmaceuticals (note: not because of some "moral right" of a chemist), and you the pharma co don't hold up your end of the bargain (producing the pharmaceuticals), then we as a society need not hold up ours (enforcing the limited rights we granted you with our courts and police).
That seems like a straightforward deal. You provide us benefits, we provide you benefits. A one sided deal like you propose (we protect "your" medicine and yet get none ourselves) is the real moral stretch.
That seems like a straightforward deal. You provide us benefits, we provide you benefits. A one sided deal like you propose (we protect "your" medicine and yet get none ourselves) is the real moral stretch.