If something is "difficult" to do, it likely requires considerable capital investment. Shouldn't the commercial returns go to the entity that made said investment? It is important not to mix up the concepts of discovery, invention, and patent, in this case. It's worth noting that, per my other thread here, this all has been heavily adjudicated by the Supreme Court, with much resting on the "expectations of success." It seems that in such matters the nitty gritty details of the particular situation matter, and it can be hard to discern innovation from discipline. In actuality, courts appear to have sided more often with parties that have "reduced to practice" the claimed IP.