Your saying so is anti-rationality, anti-property. How does timing, in and of itself, add anything to human knowledge? If the knowledge were created in 1000 AD in Europe, and then created in 1500 AD in America how did timing have any impact at all? You want to attribute time as a salient factor when it is not. I will grant that a totally independent development of calculus in a culture that already operates with that knowledge is not advanced by the independent development, and that developer will be treated thusly. But a relatively contemporaneous development of something new must allow for the ownership to exist by multiple individuals.

You can continue to claim that "simultaneous" development doesn't occur, but that is immaterial. The fact that it may occur is what matters. That needs to be addressed.

And why is the addition to the store of human knowledge a criterion? Who determines? I say that if I can devise a system of creating all possible written knowledge, then I should have the rights to same. Do you deny that if I have a computer that generates random sequences of characters that eventually it will create every work ever created and every work possible to create? The only question then is how fast can those random sequences be created. Since time is the only factor, why must I be penalized for not having had the time to allow those creations to have occurred?

However, having documented evidence of the idea prior to another inventor's application has been an impediment to patentability (at least in the past - called prior art, as I know you are aware). You cannot patent, and claim exclusive ownership of an idea, that has already existed in documented form prior to your claim of "invention."

If I have an infinite number of computers drafting an infinite number of manuscripts, then I have created every possible work. What is the problem you see?

Oh, you want to limit me to a finite number of computers - OK, that only puts a timeline on the creation. Again, how does that limit my creation of all possible works, at some point in time?

I don't require simultaneous, merely close.

As for complete independence, in your case the development of calculus, why not? Please support your contention with logic. You make an assertion with no logical reason. If I had no other concept of calculus, and developed it from "nothing", then of course I would be the discoverer of calculus. The follow on question would be - to what effect?

"Cola" is not a specific product nor idea, it is a general description of a drink containing an ingredient commonly termed "cola."

Coca Cola being maintained as a trade secret instead of as a patented item trades the ability to specifically codify a unique proportion of ingredients but make that formula public from others that claim to be the "same" as Coke but better. If Coke patented its formula, then another cola producer could create a slight variation and say that it was the same but better than Coke. By maintaining the recipe as a trade secret, nobody can claim to be Coke or the same but a bit better since the formula of Coke is "secret." However, another provider could create the exact same recipe, they just couldn't say that it was the same as Coke, nor reference Coke in any way. There are many "store brands" that have done this. They may be exactly the same or nearly so as the original brand, but cannot claim to be so. Thus the true differentiator is the trademarked brand and not the product itself.

There is no such thing as "walking away" from IP. You can only put it in the public domain with an intentional action.

No. Whomever created the original art would "own" it. The most that another could do that used that as the basis of furthering the design would be to license the original IP at whatever the original owner agreed to license it for. Unless that original licensee specified that their rights were placed in the public domain.

Mike: If one merely copied the IP of another (say that you check out a book from the library, take it to a copy machine and copy each and every page, and bind it), can you sell that for your own profit? Most would say no, that is the property of another. Merely taking the IP of another and copying it does not give you the right to profit from another's property.

However, if you created the exact same IP independently and without knowledge of the other, wouldn't you own your IP? And thus, if you sold your IP shouldn't you derive your own profit from that IP independent of the other person who also developed that IP?

And, if you set up an infinite number of computers creating an infinite number of manuscripts that would then create every existing book and every future book, wouldn't you then "own" every possible literary creation? This is a situation that causes problems.

How do you know that it was the site admin?

Can we evaluate the situation of the infinite number of computers randomly generating an infinite number of manuscripts? Such a system would create every existing book as well as every future book that would ever exist. If these computers were owned by myself, wouldn't I own all of these works?

db: Can you accept that more than one person can derive the same idea at the same time (or nearly so) without knowledge of the other? If that is true, than wouldn't you agree that the idea is not the singular property of one individual, but rather shared by both? If both have a reasonable claim to the idea, how best to provide private property protection to each? And cannot a third come up with the same idea completely independent of the first two? And now how to best provide private property protection to the third as well as the first two?

These are not easy questions, but need to be answered, don't you think? Or do you believe that the first to come up with an idea, regardless of whether any second or third person comes up with that same idea completely independently, has the sole ownership of that idea?