As I understand history, Slater reconstructed technology of which he had gained a robust understanding. That's quite different from theft of an actual constru

As I understand history, Slater reconstructed technology of which he had gained a robust understanding. That's quite different from theft of an actual constructed artifact, or knowledge that you've licensed. And if he violated patents in the process, they were patents that had force of law only in the United Kingdom. I think there is room for robust discussion and argument on how long, and for what, patents or other pure ip protection should be granted. I don't believe permanently hiding knowledge, or locking it for indefinite time in the vaults of a single rent-seeking entity is right. But enforcemenbt of time and circumstance limited exclusivity is arguably worth some cost to society, as a means of incenting people and companies to invest in commercializing their innovation. Violating the agreed rules around those things - whether those are contracts, patents, or other forms, is wrong. Specifically, it is theft.