I think you're missing the point on both the money and the patent laws in India. According to the article
"Successive governments have taken a view that patents should be granted only for major innovations, not updates to existing compounds — allowing domestic manufacturers to make generic versions of drugs at vastly lower cost." - which basically means you get a patent for real innovation, not minor cosmetic changes to keep your cash flow going.
The second - "Pharmaceutical firms say India’s disregard for patents will stifle innovation or make drugs commercially unfeasible — Gilead paid $11 billion to buy the developer of Sovaldi in 2012."
Note that it didn't cost $11B to research the drug but what it cost to buy the company. It is disingenuous to claim that their R&D cost is that high.
Not sure how much it cost to develop Sovaldi, but in general it costs $1-2Bn and ~10-12 years to develop a drug and only 1% of drugs in pipeline actually reach the market. So $11b seems a reasonable cost to assume.
That $1-2 billion figure pharmaceutical companies like to throw out is the risk adjusted cost, which includes all of the failed drugs and clinical trials for each successful product. The acquisition price for Pharmasset included Sovaldi and several other drugs.
The second - "Pharmaceutical firms say India’s disregard for patents will stifle innovation or make drugs commercially unfeasible — Gilead paid $11 billion to buy the developer of Sovaldi in 2012."
Note that it didn't cost $11B to research the drug but what it cost to buy the company. It is disingenuous to claim that their R&D cost is that high.