I'm using the limiting cases to illustrate the incentives of the parties, not as a characterization of the actual argument being made. My point is that Doctors without Borders and the USTR serve different constituencies with conflicting interests.

As for getting "paid fairly" I disagree with the general notion that companies that make unimportant things should get paid "what the market will bear" while companies that make important things should get "paid fairly." I think that creates perverse incentives.