Anyway, in your example the drug is still a monopoly in the US and EU and is likely to be profitable, is it not? Is there an epidemic of pharmaceutical companies going out of business because they can’t assert their IP effectively? Or are they making record profits? But I see your point.

My point is that while sure, that defrays the ability to completely monopolize an innovation, complete monopolization is not necessary to justify invention or development.

For the first example, a company would develop that because they are needed for supercomputers or higher performance for some application. If China wants to make them cheaper, great, it means we can do that application cheaper.

This seems to just be a debate about patents and IP in general. I doubt we can cover much new ground there.