Since you didn't bother to read the article, let me summarize it for you:

118 of the drugs during this period were considered to have scientific novelty (46%), and of those: 44% were from pharmaceutical companies. 25% were from biotech companies, and 31% were from universities (transferred to either biotech or pharma)

Of the 118 scientifically novel drugs (new MOA, etc), 69% were NOT from academia. That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug.

>That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug.

Please don't insult our intelligence.The context for this discussion is about greedy companies using existing research for free and contributing nothing back. The linked article doesn't show which scientific research contributed to the product development. Universities are not all primarily engaged in drug discovery.

The article show where the drug was discovered. And as I mentioned, almost 80% were discovered by a private company.

Now, if you'd like to claim that that discovery was based on science paid for by the gov't, I won't disagree, but continuing that line of thought we could claim that drug companies are greedy because they are taking advantage of organic chemists who did work 200 years ago.

The problem is that they have no incentive to actually cure. And near not incentive to provide cheap medication- which the patent system incentives you too, by running out after x Years. (Unless you are a frozzen Princess aka Disney) Lots of diseases are only researched at universitys. They have however a incentive, to sell anything expensive, to a audience desperate (that alone is a free market killer). And they do. I just try to understand how one can defend a held-hostage situation with free market rethoric.