I absolutely agree on that one - if a so-called invention is innovative enough to warrant patent protection, it makes it hard to explain why others wind up inventing the same thing all the time without even being aware of the original "invention" or the patent on it.
Logically, it would make sense for truly independent discovery to be considered grounds to *invalidate* a patent, along the lines of prior art. If the issue is whether something is innovative or not, and someone else truly came up with the same thing independently, ought it not argue against patentability whether the independent discovery occurred before or after the patent? The patent advocates seem to want to have it both ways. They insist that independent creation in no way avoids patent liability, but they don't want to admit that such independent creation is evidence that the patented material is obvious. I don't see how they can hold these two thoughts in their heads at the same time, unless they are simply cynically gaming the system for all it is worth.
("Ought" isn't the same as "Really Does", to be sure, but it is interesting to think of a more ideal state of affairs).