The problem with this situation is that not everybody shares this ideology, just like not everybody would share the ideology of the person against using stem cells. You're saying that when a perosn synthesizes information in such a way that something sufficiently novel comes from it, that person should have control over the use of that idea and profit financially from it. That's a cultural concept rooted primarily in English law derived from a feudal system that was reformed by aristocrats who wanted more control from the monarchy. It took a lot of very specific historical events to develop that attitude toward property, let alone intellectual property. It's a claim that's impossible to justify except on inherited cultural values, and those values are constantly changing and unevenly supported in an increasingly global economy.

When the British created a worldwide empire, they imposed their ideas on their colonies, but eventually the colonies got strong enough that they developed their own values and asserted independence against colonialism. Now we have the same kind of situation happening with a certain segment of the world, mostly from Europe and its former colonies, attempting to impose a kind of intellectual colonialism over the world by controlling the use of information and using the rest of the world as a resource and manufactirng base. The same forces that took down colonialism are at work fighting against intellectual property, except it's much easier to fight intellectual property than colonial rule.