its pathetic because its a disingenuous argument offered to prop up the side of the oppressor. the type of business scenario you describe is an edge case, and you are arguing as if it were the only case.
In Canada, in high school, we learned about Sam Slater. He is affectionately known as the father of the American factory system, but in Britain he was known as 'Slater the traitor', because he built the American factory system using stolen IP. Has nobody here heard of this guy?
Beyond it being 200+ years ago - it was one guy, not state sponsored, who remembered things he saw...versus whole scale theft of documents, designs, blueprints and other IP byproducts. I hate to say it but I can't believe you are making this argument in good faith.
It was actually pretty standard. Even in the mid 19th century when Charles Dickens visited America to a rapturous welcome he pointed out that he didn't earn a penny from American sales of his work. America only started to recognise foreign copyright holders in 1891.
