Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point about R&D is valid, but in this case epi was first synthesized in 1895 and the R&D cost has long since been amortized and the IP is in the public domain. http://www.patent-invent.com/adrenaline_patent.html This article suggests that it was in fact a very shrewd business plan: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-23/how-market...
The relevant IP isn't the active pharmaceutical ingredient but the formulation and delivery method, and that appears to be out to 2035. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/results_produc... http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/patent_info.cf... I agree it's a good business plan as a solo participant in the market, but as a second or third entrant, probably less so-- depending on IP around the formu…
I think the system we have leads to partial collusion, since all firms have an incentive to keep prices high and share the market two or three ways. If there were 30 or 40 pharma companies competing it would be a different story.