> But what strikes me as a difference is that a in the drug industry a product more or less corresponds to one patent. That patent will only block copying of that single product - a specific treatment - not a lot of other product which happens to use the same technology.
Completely inaccurate, and in any case I don't see the relevance. Coming up with the treatments isn't even the issue in a lot of cases - delivering the treatment without killing the patient (or causing other unacceptable damage to him/her) is. Why should copyright on treatments not be sufficient?
And whilst arguing for drug patents keep in mind that drug companies are more than just notorious. It is standard procedure for them to publish only successful trials, but not the unsuccessful ones; I won't even start on pure BS like "restless leg syndrome". They spend (much) more on marketing than on R&D - and they don't get patents on marketing, why should they get patents on a much smaller cost factor?