I feel like there are two issues in this thread and they're being convoluted.
The first, we have a generic drug, which is likely sold on fairly low margins because it has been off patent for so long. Along comes a spider, who sees a way to make a quick buck, and jacks up the price because the low margins had driven out many of the other manufacturers.
The second, we end up with very novel drugs, like Gilead's hepatitis C drug or Vertex's cystic fibrosis drug, which both cost quite a bit of money. Should these new drugs, which took a lot of money to develop (and likely include some costs from failed pipelines) be sold at generic margins? Just from a quick google search, the NIH had a budget of ~$30 billion, and outside of the DoD research programs, is the largest provider of basic research funding in the United States. 4 large drug companies, Roche, Novartis, J&J, and Merck spent ~$35 billion in research and development in 2013. Then there are tons of other, smaller companies spread throughout the US.
I think there is certainly an argument to be had for the latter case - where do we draw the line in cost for what become new, essential drugs for people? The former case, I think the guy is a huge jackass and should get slapped down over something like raising a non-patented drug 5000% because he just happened to have no competition.