Lmao ok, you enjoy huffing on that ignorance buddy; it is meant to feel like bliss after all. If you ever decide you wanna join the real world you could start with Googling the difference in patent law since the early 1800's, which are the definitions you seem to be going off of, and then you could move on to understanding the separation of will between the business arm of a multinational capitalist institution and the subtextual will of those whose work is exploited for sale.

You could use some practice with reading comprehension and logical extrapolation. Not once did I ever imply or suggest that the most profitable option was to let the customer die. I suggested that they (being the pharmaceutical industry) could abuse the inelastic demand for a life sustaining medication in order to lock their "customers" (who have the sum total of two choices: A. do whatever is necessary to continue receiving doses of medication or B. die.) into an abusive relationship (read: hostage situation).

You ever heard the thought experiment surrounding choosing to take $100 today or $1 every day for the rest of your life?

Yes the pharmaceutical industry would SURELY love to cure themselves out of existence! Sustainable business doesn't even come across the abusive executives minds when they charge the public billions of dollars to lead R&D on products that they get to patent in perpetuity and then sell back at ridiculous prices.

Oh but I thought this expert knew all about the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, surely they know about the withholding of life saving medications instead of going on as if it's some kind of hypothetical and not something that actively happens on regular basis...

Mmm but see the difference is HIV/AIDS is terminal. If they can own you by threatening to withhold your life saving medication then they've got you for life. Something like a highly communicable respiratory disease is another whole story.

Gladly, nothing will happen because cures are a one time purchase and treatment is forever.