Do they think the Egyptian gov't will turn a blind eye to violating the IP?
I wouldn't be very surprised if they do. Egypt doesn't have powerful domestic IP-reliant industries lobbying for the enforcement of IP. No doubt there are international obligations of some sort, but the benefit of "slash costs for curing a serious disease" is a lot more concrete than the penalty of "the country could face a protracted legal case." It's happened before, with e.g. antiretroviral drugs for HIV in South Africa. Ultimately the pharmaceutical companies backed down, both because they had limited material leverage and because "trying to make poor countries pay more for medicine" is judged in the court of public opinion.
Saving an additional $600 per patient is significant for a country as poor as Egypt. The existence of an even cheaper alternative strengthens the Egyptian government's negotiating position for agreements going forward. Prices may be re-negotiated further downward in light of this new development.
As a rough analogy: consider the effect of sci-hub on recent negotiations between universities subscribing to academic journals and the journals' publishers. Even if the universities do not openly embrace/endorse sci-hub, the existence of an unlicensed near-substitute for the licensed product has strengthened the negotiating position of the universities.
I wouldn't be very surprised if they do. Egypt doesn't have powerful domestic IP-reliant industries lobbying for the enforcement of IP. No doubt there are international obligations of some sort, but the benefit of "slash costs for curing a serious disease" is a lot more concrete than the penalty of "the country could face a protracted legal case." It's happened before, with e.g. antiretroviral drugs for HIV in South Africa. Ultimately the pharmaceutical companies backed down, both because they had limited material leverage and because "trying to make poor countries pay more for medicine" is judged in the court of public opinion.