AW: Nemo plagiarized?

[Cord Wiljes]

Matthew Williams wrote:

> Nemo and Pierrot look similar, but they are both anthropomorphic
computer
> generated clown fish.

The interesting thing with coincidences is: Given enough events,
coincidences are bound to happen! In fact it is very, very unlikely that
two such similar plots should appear independently at just about the
same time. So there must be a reason - the obvious one being plagiarism.
Or is it not?

Consider this: Someone wins in the lottery. It was highly unlikely that
this individual would win. But he did. So he cheated? Of couse not:
*Some*one of the millions of players *had* to win.

Many people all over the world are having and creating new ideas. It is
unlikely that two people have just the same idea at the same time. and
it happens very seldom. But sometimes it does. As someone wins in the
lottery. Or estimates the number of beans in a bowl correctly. So IMO
arguing with probabilities in this case is not really convincing.

Cord

P.S.: I just noticed that I consider "Pierrot" a far better name for a
clownfish than "Nemo".  Pierrot originally was the white-faced
(clown-like) servant in 18th century Comédie Italienne. Nemo on the
other hand means "nobody" (latin nemo = nobody) or implies "Captain
Nemo" from Jules Vernes "20.000 Leagues under the Sea", who was using
his submarine Nautilus to ram and sink war ships.