AIds and River Blinding case response

Consider the AIDS and River Blindness cases. Merck ultimately decided to distribute the drug themselves instead of making the patent available for generic use (as suggested in the AIDS case). According to UNICEF, they have donated over 2 billion Mectizan pills and over 80 million people are treated annually. Requirements: Just answer the question in its entirety, no specific length is required Would Friedman’s Stockholder theory allow Merck to donate the Mectizan pills? What would someone using the Triple Bottom Line say about this? Support your answers with an argument. Under a compulsory patent license, a legal body allows one company to use another company’s intellectual property without their permission. Should such legal arrangements be enacted for medicines treating diseases like HIV and River Blindness? Support your answers with an argument utilizing an ethical theory Would Friedman’s Stockholder theory allow Merck to donate the Mectizan pills? What would someone using the Triple Bottom Line say about this? Support your answers with an argument.
Under a compulsory patent license, a legal body allows one company to use another company’s intellectual property without their permission. Should such legal arrangements be enacted for medicines treating diseases like HIV and River Blindness? Support your answers with an argument utilizing an ethical theory