[Qwertious]

'I dunno about all that. "For the greater good" "Ends justify the means" all come to mind. If it's theft, it's theft. If it's within the law to stop them from continuing to develop off of allegedly stolen IP, then that's the right decision.'

Problem is, IP is an invention that temporarily takes away the public's right to copy, for the purposes of encouraging cultural works and public documentation of trade secrets.

In other words, IP is based on "for the greater good" itself, so if you claim that "for the greater good" is invalid, then IP is invalid by extension.

Now, you could argue that it will damage trust in the reliability of the legal system, but that doesn't change the fact that the "if it's theft, it's theft" argument doesn't hold any water.