Of course they did this in their pricing/costs calculations, how could they not have - given that 'they' are pharmaceutical executives whose job it is to make as much money per pill as possible.
Well, if there is ever a 'place' for the open-Source ethos, medicine is it. Stories like this confirm it for me, anyway.
An open source ethos in pharmaceuticals would pretty much guarantee you'd have a lot fewer new drugs developed. If it costs $500M-$1B to develop a drug, how on earth do you raise that money if some random company can come by and sell the same drug for $5/day because they didn't pay any development costs?
If the reason it costs 500millions to develop a drug is because you have to have lots of junkets to pimp the new profitpill to the politicians so they'll let you get a majority of their nation high/dependent on it, then I'm all for a revision to how society 'gets these things done'. surely you can't be relying on that same ol' pimp statement, "sorry man, it cost me a lot to get this stuff, you gotta pay ..", for it is scurrilous to assume that drug dependency doesn't have a profit side.
If there were any way of settling such a bet, I'd put $100 on that right now.