True. But the stronger argument is that they would also happen at roughly the same time, as hinted by the fact that many ground breaking innovations were found

True. But the stronger argument is that they would also happen at roughly the same time, as hinted by the fact that many ground breaking innovations were found independently by different scientists once the necessary prerequisites were discovered. This dependence on the scientific society as whole is often conveniently ignored by those arguing for strong IP[1] protection. And even worse is that many patents actually severely hinder the spread of the concerned innovation. As an example in cryptography see the Offset Codebook Mode for authenticated encryption. Even though the authors have now granted free use for open source software it has remained an extreme niche solution. Or see NTRUEncrypt, probably one of the best shots for post-quantum public key cryptography. [1] I don't like term intellectual property, because in it lies the quiet acceptance of the idea in general, that thoughts and knowledge can be owned. Calling it IM - intellectual monopoly - is more to the point. We should not forget that a huge part of the fight for the public opinion is won or lost by the concepts our language provide us with and limit us to.