Yep.
There are quite a few laws that often seem unfair but are there simply because otherwise it wouldn't work.
For example the 8 year exclusive use of a drug to the company that creates it. It is there because creating new drugs is so expencive that without exclusive use very few ones would be made (and even then. the VAAAAST majority of drugs are cheap immitations or 'renamed' drugs repurposed)
Not perfect, though. I actually worked in an associated industry attached to the pharmaceutical one, so know the length of time it takes to bring a proposed drug to market (all the way from "Hey, we have a new molecule that we can call our own, I wonder if it does anything?" conversation through to the dispensation stage). Many of the discoveries (or happenstances, or sometimes products re-investigated for something new
after they'd been looked at for something else) don't get to market, so Big Pharma is keen to make as much wonga as they can out of those that do...
But they're also not going to spend time on something that (say)
totally cures "slight sniffles" in people, if they can only end up selling it for pennies for the entire course of treatment, and most of that being the packaging. But having seen the industry from (more or less) the inside and out I can't work out how to provide the necessary reward that allows effective and beneficial 'trivial' treatments to be considered worthwhile while at the same time not penalising the end user for the very basic ability to recover that lost 50% of productivity on the one week out of the year they're "not feeling their best". (Figures totally snatched out of mid-air, there, I hope you realise.)
Erm, what was I trying to say? You're probably well beyond that point, now, so perhaps best to ignore me.