The EBITDA in the pharma industry is 32% higher than the average of the S&P 500, and their profit margin (both gross and operating) is nearly double that of the S&P 500, thanks to the monopolization advantages to which they're gifted. Clearly they're doing alright without government subsidies (not counting their COVID subsidies). What society needs from them is to serve a public purpose but given their significant profit margins, they're gouging the fuck out of us.
From one of the NIH studies I believe I linked above. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7054843/
Gross Profit Margin: Pharmaceutical companies have a significantly higher gross profit margin (70.3%) compared to the S&P 500 companies (37.4%)
EBITDA Margin: Pharmaceutical companies have a higher EBITDA margin (25.2%) compared to the S&P 500 companies (19.0%)
Net Income Margin: Pharmaceutical companies have a higher net income margin (10.2%) compared to the S&P 500 companies (7.7%) (Table 3).
Research and Development (R&D) Expenses: Pharmaceutical companies dedicate a larger percentage of their revenue to R&D expenses (17%) compared to other industries (average R&D expenses as a percentage of revenue range from 2% to 10% for various industries) (Table 4).
Marketing and Sales Expenses: Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing and sales expenses (18-22 billion USD) compared to R&D expenses (8-12 billion USD) for some of the largest pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Bayer, Johnson & Johnson) (AHIP analysis).
Operating Expenses: Pharmaceutical companies have higher operating expenses (selling, general, and administrative expenses) compared to other industries, with some companies allocating over 30% of their revenue to these expenses (AHIP analysis).
Profitability: Pharmaceutical companies are generally more profitable than other industries, with an average operating profit margin of 23.1% compared to 12.1% for the S&P 500 companies (Table 4).
My recollection is that I asked him the question you quoted because patent thickets were a key part of a topic in 2 prior posts of mine to which he responded but didn't address the topic of patent thickets. Also how the fuck am I to be expected to know what he does for a living?
Logically it makes zero sense to me that multiple studies by the federal government and higher education over the past several years including by USCPB, the NIH, HHS, GAO and UCSD have pointed to the same problems with pharma patents, including a high rate of patent abuse. But hey a poster on Surly who apparently works for pharma is convinced about the correctness of his own arguments, which (unless I'm reading between the lines incorrectly which is certainly more than possible) seem quite likely to benefit him financially.