WWT - we are not talking about a drug, say to cure AIDS, which has taken thirty years to develop in the hope of making huge profits. We are talking about charging umpteen times the cost of, for example, aspirin by calling it by another name.
If you think this right and necessary to fund the R&D into new drugs then this R&D is being funded by the gullible.
Is it not a principle of business to invest either previous profit or borrowing to develop new products in the hope of future profit?
Actually, it does seem to be being done your way more these days. That is, getting the customer to pay for installation rather than supplying means to offer a product in the hope that the customer will buy it.
If you want a new gas or electricity supply, you have to pay for installation.
Did you have to pay directly for a new shop or filling station or does the company hope for future sales to pay for it and then make a profit?
Did anyone buy you a van and/or equipment so that you could earn money?
Oh I see, all other companies are paragons of virtue, dedicated to selling each product at a modest profit and no more.
It's a free world, you make your choice. If you're savvy like the OP, you buy a generic drug.
By the way, I don't see this as wrong. If the extra profits (partly or even largely eaten into by advertising) help fund R&D, that sounds good to me. As I said, most candidate drugs fail. The big problem is that the market fails for some diseases e.g. ones that are rare (not enough customers), or common ones suffered by the poor (customers skint). Another problem is that an old drug might turn out to cure another disease, but why research uses of a drug with an expired patent, when generics will undercut your profits?

