I definitely agree about the right and wrong thing - but what's the most effective way to deal with it? I've been in this kind of situation before, and it was profoundly upsetting for about 6 months, and it's still a negative thing, years later. I did not deal with it well. My interest is in learning how I could deal with these issues better next time - without people hating me, and me becoming bitter (er, more bitter).

It's easier to see it in another person (e.g. Thom) and therefore learn about it, than in oneself. So...

The only way I can see for Thom to have gotten through this, was to have made similar speed improvements to his own code (even if it meant getting someone else to do it for him, if he wasn't an assembly hacker). Then, whether he sued Katz or not, he would have won, and been happy. If you stop users from getting a better product, and you won't supply it yourself, they won't like you one bit. I don't think people's good opinion should matter to me, but it really, really does. I really don't like it when people are angry with me, even when it's their misunderstanding. I like fan mail.

There's a tendency in everyone to think that because you were the first to do or find something, that it somehow belongs to you... Many people think of Microsoft as inventing the computer and the internet - because Microsoft brought it to them. It's as if the delivery guy somehow created it! Prometheus gets credit for fire (but he stole it!) I strongly have these feelings myself, and there are good justifications for them (in motivating people to find stuff, do stuff, be first) - but it's just not true, in a philosophical sense. When you're first, it's partly a blessing. You can't claim 100% responsibility for the opportunity that came to you, or for the existence of the thing that you found. You can claim preparedness, recognition and acting on it. Thom had an opportunity to create Arc - and he did. Then Katz came along with speed improvements - round 2.

I believe that thinking purely in moral terms doesn't always give you the best outcomes, as in that saying "would you rather be happy or right?"

We can't stop people from abusing our trust - but do we have to become victims to it, so we have no choices in our response to it? Or does our universe of options contain paths that lead to outcomes we'd be happier with?

I'd like to learn how to handle this kind of situation better next time - so I'm also interested in how Google will handle that open source copy of their PageRank patent... I think they'll handle it adroitly, in a way I could learn from... (maybe offer to employ the guys? or maybe just ignore them, if they don't get anywhere?)

BTW: I think PKarc was the copy + improvement; PKzip was a complete rewrite, and non-infringing. Not just alleged, but "proven" in court.

(I hope the different threads of morality, ownership and how to best handle it are not too intertwined in this rambling comment - I've tried my best to untwine them, but I'm very tired, and don't think I've succeeded).

You've raised a lot of interesting questions, and I cannot possibly respond to them all.

I think you'd enjoy The Paypal Wars (Jackson). It's about how Paypal survived unfair fights with much bigger companies. Fascinating story. And it shows how sometimes there are options that lead to better outcomes... you just have to be willing to fight hard.

thanks :-)