One very frustrating part of this opinion piece is that the author keeps referring to it as “theft”. I’m not defending either side of the actual case here, I’m

One very frustrating part of this opinion piece is that the author keeps referring to it as “theft”. I’m not defending either side of the actual case here, I’m just saying the writing here is bad. Theft is a very loaded word and wholly inappropriate in this context. Even the links they link to refer to it correctly as infringement. There is no evidence of corporate espionage in the court hearings to get information that wasn’t available publicly. You cannot steal an idea that’s in the public. You can steal implementation details that aren’t public but the idea itself once out there can only be infringed against in the narrow definition of the protective patents. That the author purposefully or erroneously makes that mistake repeatedly really hurts the rest of the piece.