I don't feel conflicted. Patent protection was established as a mechanism to encourage and facilitate innovation and to encourage inventers. The question I ask myself is whether the current system is sufficiently balanced. In my opinion, it is not. It is way too much in the favour of large pharma. A good way to check that it is, would be to examine the books of a pharma company and check what percentage of profit (not earnings) goes to R&D versus other areas like say marketing. This journal article suggests that marketing spending is 20 times higher than that on R&D. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 That causes me to be skeptical of pharmaceutical company claims that the generics industry is killing innovation. I've even heard a pharma marketeer use the term "Indian generics terrorism" which is exceedingly callous given that we're basically choosing to deny life to those individuals who can't afford big pharma marketed drugs. The patent system was not intended to be used to justify such behavior.
Why should they be spending all their profits on R&D and not marketing?
Do you refuse to wear name-brand clothes because they spend 90% of their profits on marketing?
Marketing was the example in the article. It is also one that catches my attention because I was aware of a case where my personal physician was pushing a particular drug and I was aware that pharma salesmen (marketeers) are permitted to encourage physicians to favor their products through controversial freebies like free trips to company seminars in the Bahamas, etc. I have no hate for marketing. If I had found a article contrasting how much is spent on legal versus R&D, I would have used that. And, by chance, yes, I do refuse to waste an extra dime on clothing just for a logo.
