I think the point that needs to be made is that the guitar industry, much like many other industries, is a constant cycle of one person borrowing ideas from another. Improving ideas, developing ideas, making things lighter, faster, stronger. Asking “what if...?”
Just look at the number of guitar companies who have “made better Fenders than Fender” over the years. This obviously was a kick in the teeth to Fender, especially at a time when the quality of their own instruments was poor. However, without that pressure from competitors Fender might not be in as good a place quality-wise as they are now.
There are still countless companies out there who “make better Fenders than Fender”, but at least now that their quality control has improved it isn’t quite such an obvious no-brainer to go with another brand. They still have a long way to go though and I’d prefer to play my Dingwall Super P than an actual Fender Precision, and would rather have a Lakland/Xotic/MTD flavoured J bass than a Fender Jazz all day long.
Apple and Samsung are constantly “stealing” from each other, both hardware designs and software features. They seem to be in a perpetual state of court action against one another but we as consumers benefit from excellent tech and, perhaps most importantly, we get options.
On a legal level, if something hasn’t been explicitly protected then it is fair game for use. Fair enough - if Gibson had defended their intellectual property from the start and people were using their designs I would agree with you @Al Krow, it would be theft. Gibson failed to do so. It’s their mistake. They should learn from it and move on with a view to improving themselves rather than trying to be corporate bullies and blaming other companies for their own shortcomings in the guitar industry.