[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "I'm astonished that these drug companies were ever allowed to keep their patents in the first place if the U.S. government was funding the research to develop them."

The principled argument is on of government per se.

If government is "investing" -- such a lie -- in EVs and such, should the EV producers have to reduce their pricing plans? Or student loan forgiveness, in which the academic entities be required to reduce their pricing? And for that matter, universities receiving grants, which by rights then also reduce their tuition further? What of the "military industrial" manufacturers, whose prices rise and rise while actual productivity falls? The list is lengthier by far than this.

That government should be involved in "thumb on the scale" anything is a problem, as I view it. And when one notices a pattern, it is likely that pattern's effects will spread far and wide.

Eisenhower in his famous speech warned not only of the "military industrial complex," but also of the effect of government monies flowing into so many other areas.

And in the ensuing years, this government cannot spend within its collection, and is putting massive sums onto "public" debt, which at this point is taxation without representation all the while many politicians becomes wealthy.

[Alberta's Child]

You won’t get an argument from me on any of that, but that goes to a broader question of government’s role in any of those things.

I have worked on several research projects in my career that were funded by the U.S. government. In every case, the government retained ownership of the published materials, and the research and data were in the public domain with no restrictions on use. I’m not sure why a drug patent funded through government research should be any different.