You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?
Brompton is a very good company actually and one of the very few to keep its production and emplyment within the UK which is actually quite an admirable achievment. That's not defying progress it's merely sticking to what Andrew Ritchie believes in and many people are happy to suscribe to that. Brompton remains a very profitable company so if you are citing the laws of competition, then they are prevailing despite market forces or because of them.
I might accept some of your arguments applied to say greedy corporations or the music industry. There is a difference between protecting IP when it has involved a lot of R&D and using legislation to allow corporates to abuse market supply and supernormal profits. I'd like to see your Adam Smith ideals work in a world without IP protection. Somehow I think innovation would slow and R&D budgets cut back. Are you sayng patents are pointless? Surely the ability to use the legal system to protect copyright involves competitive capabilities too and therefore its part of market forces?
Anyway the Strida is out of patent as pointed out to me earlier. Although, using Ming's photos and descriptions is deceiving, I guess it's a free for all on this type of bike concept in itself overall.