Originally Posted by
berlinonaut
As far as I know (which may be wrong) this was no intentional theft but a parallel development of something David Hon had patented either shortly before or maybe even shortly later...
Patent IP theft doesn't depend on intent. If Dr. Hon's work was later, as you further speculate, then Mr. Ritchie could present notarized, witnessed evidence his work came prior - which, in ~30 years, he has been unable to do.