I'll try to stimulate thought a bit.

>> My point is that simultaneous equivalent acts of genius makes
>> for a good urban legend, but seems rather unlikely.
>
> I'm not so sure.  I mean, just in the past few weeks, look at the
> markaby/xx/nitro markup thing, or to a much lesser extent the
> solutions to the bin packing Ruby Quiz and the recentish lazy
> evaluation thread.
>
> As far as I can see, if you've got enough people working in the same
> problem space, similar solutions are almost inevitable.  I'd have to
> say that the history of science and technology bears that out. 
> Independent reinvention tends to be the rule rather than the
> exception, and questions of "who invented X?" turn out to be
> incredibly nuanced.

"In the same problem space"

If order (same solution) arises from chaos (researching), is that because of
restrictions in the search space?
If different solutions arise, is that because of limitations in tools/knowledge?

Or, why do dolphins have a tailfin as well as fishes?
One happens to be horizontal and the other vertical.
But you need some vertebrae (sp?) 'coz otherwise the solution is not available.

Or, "pyramids were built by egyptians *and* mayas *and* ... many more; they
must have had contact in the old ages!"
Well, no, it is just the simplest construction to reach to the sky.
Nowadays, with steel available, there's a lot more possible.
One day, with anti-gravity, someone may put the pyramid upside down.

> While there's nothing wrong with penalising deliberate plagarism,
> we'd do well to rid ourselves of the modernist fantasy of frequent
> wholly unique acts of genius.

Full ack.
(I'll sidestep the patent issue, even though I have a lot to say about it;
read Lawrence Lessig if you want to know more.)

---

I also agree with the point that understanding comes with imitation. Plainly
imitating in order to make money is... futile... irritating... and often it
seems to be just that. It can also mean the other company is adapting, for
real, but it's gonna take them much more time than it took you, for various
reasons.

As a scientist, it is easy to say that understanding should be the goal,
hence imitation is merely the starting point. But also scientists, most of
the time, are not capable of making anything but a tiny improvement.

Or, why are there so many programming languages? why does Ruby use so many
ideas from other languages and why do we all think it merits the language's
existence?