> There's a decent argument for drug patents (drugs cost a fortune to develop; makers only recoup losses if they can mark up the cost of drugs massively; competition gets in the way of that), but I'd argue this is a better argument against the whole industry and an argument for more public funding of drug research.

Got any others?

And/or since you brought it up, I'm legitimately asking: what's the best example in your mind of a drug that probably would not exist without patents?