Aside from the corporate share of R&D costs, the company bears practically the entire burden of legal liability if patients are injured by the drug under their patent. Doctors and hospitals have malpractice coverage, but face it: the drug companies have the deeper pockets. National Cancer Institute would not bear any degree of liability for injury from outcome of a scientific development that they initiated. Personally, I would like to see Novartis reduce the cost of Gleevec - particularly since they also own the patent on Tasigna which is the 2nd generation version. (Don't confuse this with the "evergreening patents" that the article mentioned. Tasigna has demonstrated 50 times more efficacy against the disease, and has a much smaller incidence of side effects). While I would welcome lower prices on these products, I also believe that Novartis has demonstrated adequate committment to pro bono ethic by the price relief programs they offer to uninsured.