Million Dollar Idea?

In these first couple weeks of AS it seems a lot our discussions have revolved around the idea of intellectual property. First, Mr. O'Conner rallied against the tried and true, "do your own work," rule in favor of a classroom which relies on collaboration. Mr. Bolos, on the other hand, led an interesting discussion on the privatization of the Internet through Apple's app system. Thinking about these two discussions I had to ask myself, does putting a price-tag on ideas threaten the right to information?
Take for instance the controversy over Myriad Genetics patenting a section of the human genome (Judge Invalidates Human Genome Patent). Myriad is a company that creates and sells breast cancer test kits. If their proposed patent had been validated it would have given them and only them the right to do research and testing with these genes. The ruling in my opinion was the fair one, and Myriad's claim seemed to me obviously ridiculous. But even in failure the patent sets precedent, it challenges the difference between common knowledge and private intellectual property. It conjures up all sorts of terrifying hypothetical scenarios. What if I had to pay Jon Krakauer each time I quoted from Into the Wild? What if the Neo-Nazi movement could buy the rights to the history of the Holocaust? Or if the Suns could patent the pick and roll?
In my opinion ideas and information ought to be as accessible as possible. Ideas, after all, are meant to be shared. Patents and copyrights are meant to defend against theft of intellectual property, not to be used to restrict knowledge and take down the competition, like in Myriad's case. As a full-time student and a part of the Internet addicted generation I depend upon free, accessible, and up-to-date information, and I believe in my right to educate myself free of charge