I am a lawyer...I know these definitions pretty well, so Ill chime in.<p>Let&#x27;s take George Bernard&#x27;s famous quote:  “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”  According to your definition, one could not engage in theft of an idea, because one could never be deprived of an idea like with the taking of an apple.<p>However, let&#x27;s look at the actual legal definition of theft: The actus reus (act) of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another&#x27;s property which must be accompanied by a mens rea (mental state&#x2F;intent) of dishonesty and&#x2F;or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.<p>You limited the definition of theft to only include when one&#x27;s mental state intends to deprive someone.  The actual definition is not limited though, but alternatively includes when the taking was done dishonestly.  Therefore, if someone takes something not belonging to them, and does so dishonestly that in fact is theft.  Since I foresee the definition of dishonesty being the next issue here, that has been defined in case law, but generally where the person intended to take property they did not have a legal right to take.