The whole patent pending or not thing is a very weak point anyway.
As some others mentioned, its intellectual property that is protected regardless of the patent.
Anycase, its a question of morals and ethics.
Theft of a design, is still theft.
KPA
I believe you are missing the point. Its not a simple black or white proposition as you make it out to be. Intellectual property is only protected to the extent the law provides via copyright (written works), trademark (symbols, characters, logos, phrases, etc..) or patents (unique designs). If granted, a patent provides exclusive rights for a period of time in specific countries. The extent of the protection a patent provides on a design is dependent on the wording of the patent application.
In the past a patent was granted to the originator. New rules use "first past the goalpost". What this means is that if you come up with an idea and release it to the public domain -- anyone can file a patent on it - even beating out the "inventor".
The difficulty I believe is in the generic use of the term "design". You cannot patent an "idea" but a product that originates from the idea. A patent only covers the useage of the product. That is why you pay very high fees to good patent lawyers who can include future uses of the product in ways that weren't covered by the original idea.
If someone takes the same idea (which is now public knowledge with the submission of the patent application) and changes the design or its application such that it does not violate the original patent they can then sell the new product.
Determining what constitues a new design that does not violate existing patentd requires the hiring of a good patent lawyer. Depending on the patent awarded, the changes to the design could be very minor, somewhat difficult, nearly impossible, or impossible.
Morals and ethics means following the rules that were laid out for everyone to abide by.
The original idea of a patent was to foster new ideas and designs that would benefit mankind. As such, patents were to be used to reward the originator of the unique design for a specific period of time. Upon expiry of the patent the idea was free for all to use to develope new products or combine them with different ideas. What was happening was that larger corporations where filing patent's on everything and then sitting on them. A direct result was the stagnation of new products and services due to this artificial "protection" of so called intellectual property. That is why the rules governing what was patentable was changed as well as who could apply for the patent.
There are other ways to protect intellectual property. Case in point: Heinze Ketchup. There is a trademark protection on the logo. The actual ingredients are a trade secret that has never been divulged to the public. As a result, they have been able to produce the product under their trade name far longer than any patent would have provided. Is using any formulated "tomato paste" other than Heinze brand on your burger and fries causing you ethical or moral problems? I think not. Patents are a tool to allow companies exclusive rights. It is their decision on where and when they wish to excercise those rights. By not applying for patents in various jurisdictions they are telling the world the want limited rights - not exclusive world wide rights.
L