If the GP is advocating that ideas and their expressions shouldn't be 'private' if expressed publicly, then comparing it to stealing is incorrect.

> Just because it's possible to steal something, you/society should allow it to happen?

A closer comparison would be: you heard me tell a story. You don't think society should allow you to tell it to someone else because I 'own' it, and to tell someone else is to 'steal' from me.

Err, no. He used the word copyright. Somehow you translated that into stealing. You did, definitely, misinterpret what was said.

You can spend your life arguing over who copied whom and by how much - or you can accept the flattery, get on and do the next thing.

What if I don't want to be "flattered"? I don't really see anything flattering about someone copying one of my ideas when I don't want them to copy it.

You seem to be using a different definition to the word "flattery" than any I know. Being copied is inherently flattering whether you want them to copy you or not.

Flattery is a two-way act to me, why else did you use the word? You basically said "accept that someone copied you against your wishes and just ignore it".

I can see your point generally, but in this case, I can't see how being copied is anything other than flattering. It means the idea was good.

Regards your second sentence, that is what I'm saying. A large company that's put lots of resources into something fighting of another company who "stolen" their idea, while tedious, makes some sense. For an individual, I can't see how it's worth the time, stress or money to worry about copyright.