A case study about chapter 6 ( Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks)

Cases background 

Becton Dickinson, the world's largest manufacturer of medical supplies and equipment introduced the safety lock syringes only in 3-cc at first which was the most safer than any other manufacturer. In 2004 Becton Dickinson agreed to pay Retractable to a small innovative company making safety syringes $100 million dollars for damages it had inflicted on the small manufacturer.  The issue raises  the year before, when Premier and Novation (two of largest general purchasing organisation or GPO that buy supplies for hospital and clinics) had Retractable an undisclosed sum of money for the damages that inflicted by small company cooperating with Becton..then these 3 company blocked retractable from selling it  (safety syringe) to the hospital and infected the worker who had AIDS and other blood-borne diseases  During the last decade of the twentieth century, safety syringes had become an issue when the AIDs epidemic started to pose peculiarly dilemmas for health workers. AIDS was not the only risk posed by needle stick injuries. Hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and other lethal diseases were also being contracted through accidental needlestick.

Question (need to discuss)

1) In your judgement, did Becton Dickinson have an obligation to provide the safety syringe in all its size in that time?

2) Should manufacturer be held liable for failing to market all the products for which they hold exclusive patents when someone's injury would have been avoided if they had marketed those product ?

3) implement the social cost view of the manufacturer duties in this cases