> the Pokemon aren't only catchable by one person in a given location. Oh.. Didn't know that.. > Secondly, if our universe is a simulation, do you really own

> the Pokemon aren't only catchable by one person in a given location. Oh.. Didn't know that.. > Secondly, if our universe is a simulation, do you really own the land you claim to? We have to go back to the root of what ownership is. The way I see it ownership of land evolved somehow like this: During stone ages or somewhere along that time, a group of humans decided that anything that grows or walks around that land was theirs to claim. Hence if another group of people tried to catch or collect something on that land they would start a fight. In essence this means that ownership of the land => ownership of the resources on the land. Back to the Pokemon, and again I thought that only one person could catch the Pokemon that spawn in a location. A Pokemon is a resource that is only available on a specific location, even if it needs a smartphone to see it and catch it. Assuming that this resource has some value, how is it different than a buffalo that lives in a specific location. It too needs tools to catch it. Therefore I cannot see why I cannot claim ownership on a Pokemon that spawned in my land, the same way I claim ownership on a tree that grew in my land. Edit: BTW, just making very lighthearted discussion.