That type of engineering that Compaq performed was very specific clean room reverse engineering or clean room design, which is specifically designed as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation by going off the specification (in Compaq case the Bios specification) and not the original design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Right, and that's where I question whether the "clean room" is something that is morally necessary.

If it's okay to copy something in the legal way that Compaq did it, why is it not legal to skip the clean room and just copy a design?

I don't mean espionage and actual stealing of code/schematics (I don't think many Chinese companies engage in that, contrary to the perception). I mean, the company buys the product, inspects it, then copies it.

If Compaq had done that directly, it would have been illegal, but the outcome would have been the same as the clean room design.

I question the merits of having that level of copy protection where reverse engineering is only legal in a specific and arbitrarily convoluted way. To me it seems like that idea might encourage monopolies and higher prices for everyone.

Huh? Why wouldn't they have gone off IBM's design? It seems extremely likely they would have had several copies in their 'clean room'.

Because going off IBM's design would have been illegal. It's one of the most famous and well documented reverse engineering projects ever, and they had no copies of the IBM Bios in their clean room because otherwise it would have been illegal. That's literally what clean room reverse engineering means.

> 'they had no copies of the IBM Bios in their clean room because otherwise it would have been illegal' According to who?