[mattrices]

Your intention is irrelevant, limiting your opportunity is not theft. You're using that analogy as an emotional appeal to present the ip holder as a victim.

Any competitor could limit your opportunity by releasing a functionally similar non infringing product. Would you choose the word 'robbing' in that circumstance?

One would have to use your ip to create a competing product before it would even be copyright infringement, and it still wouldn't be theft since you cannot steal somthing intangible since by definition it only exists as an abstraction which is not the same as zero valued tangible inventory.

[snowwrestler]

I think you need to go back up and carefully read from my first post. I'm not talking about competitive markets in general, I'm talking about a specific transaction where you end up with a product I'm selling, but I don't end up with the revenue I was asking for that product.

As an exercise: walk into Best Buy and pick up a $1,000 TV. On the way out, hand the cashier a check for the wholesale price of that TV. Have you just committed theft? And if so, what specifically have you stolen? You haven't deprived them of the TV itself, since you reimbursed them fully for that.

[mattrices]

Allow me to present an intangible analogy to illustrate... If I see a chair at ikea and they own a patent on it and I go home and make a chair based on their ip, but don't commercially manufacture and distribute it then did I steal a chair? If it is stolen what have I stolen exactly?

I guess my point is that my point is that ip is a liscense to manufacture and/or distribute rather than a total monopoly on the idea or demand for the product.