I&#x27;m inclined to agree.<p>I&#x27;ve seen a couple of instances of idea theft reasonably up close with a previous employer where a couple of companies (that I know about) stole not just the product ideas, but substantially replicated the business model as well.<p>The key point here is that the theft was of ideas that had already been turned into successful products or businesses in their own right. I&#x27;ve never seen an instance where somebody stole an idea that hadn&#x27;t already been realised successfully; I&#x27;m sure it happens, but I reckon it&#x27;s pretty rare.<p>I think unrealised business ideas, even those that turn out to be hugely successful, often don&#x27;t sound that compelling unless you&#x27;re personally invested in them already. Hence people don&#x27;t tend to steal them.<p>On the other hand, if something is already successful that <i>can</i> significantly derisk, or reduce the perception of risk, involved in attempting it yourself<i>, and therefore might make it more appealing to copy.<p>So, yes, I agree, where brilliant equates to demonstrably successful.<p></i>Obviously if something is too well established, or your potential competitors massively overmatch you in terms of talent or resources, this argument falls apart. There&#x27;s probably some combination of optimal scale&#x2F;adoption&#x2F;market awareness&#x2F;penetration&#x2F;maturity, etc., that makes this more viable. In a consolidated market copying would almost certainly be a terrible idea.