Should you be able to sue your friend if they take an idea you came up with and use it as their own?

This essay argues that if you come up with an idea for a new product and tell a friend about it, you should be able to sue this friend for a share of the profits if they take, develop and make a lot of money from selling this idea, as it is morally unfair for you to lose out of enjoying the potential rewards and benefits owed to you for coming up with the initial idea. First, since the idea was your own invention, you should be duly rewarded for your creativity and innovation. Second, since your friend did not have your knowledge or consent when developing your idea, you should be able to sue them for a share of profits because they acted in a dishonourable and unprincipled manner. 

Innovation within society needs to be acknowledged and encouraged 

It can be argued that if a friend takes your idea without your consent and knowledge, you should be able to sue them for a share of profits, because fundamentally, the idea was your mind’s own possession and creation. One purpose of issuing profit to individuals who create and sell new products is to incentivise and encourage creativity within society. Therefore, it can be said that each individual morally and dutifully deserves to be rewarded for their own innovation. Hence, it seems that by rewarding your friend who took and developed the idea for themselves, and by not allowing you to sue them for a share of profits, it takes away the whole notion of rewarding innovation and pioneering, and instead just rewards the person who tangibly develops the idea first. Consequently, you should be able to sue them to get your share of profits, in order to receive the rewards you are due for your innovation. 

However, this may be countered with the fact that it was your own mistake that you failed to secure any legal protection to ensure your idea was not taken and developed by someone else. And so, it can be said that once you came up with the initial idea, a reasonable action to have taken next would be to have got a patent to protect that idea. Thus, you should not be able to sue your friend for simply grasping an open advantage that was not under legal protection. Despite this, not everyone who came up with the initial idea may have sufficient financial resources or time to obtain a patent from the government. So, it can be said that it is unimportant whether or not you legally secure an idea. Subsequently, you should be able to sue your friend for a share of profits to get some rewards for your initial idea. 

Morally right for you to receive a share of the profits 

It may be said that you should be able to sue your friend for taking your idea and developing it, since it is the right and fair thing to do, as you were the creator of the profitable idea. If one considers the individual, you should be able to sue your friend, since it was your idea in the first instance. More importantly, you should be able to sue your friend because they did not have your knowledge or consent. As a result, it is unfair to let the individual lose out commercially if a friend takes their idea, if they are unable to sue them to receive a share of the profits. The Kantian principle of deontology also supports this argument, in that one could use it to argue that you should be able to sue your friend, since they acted in an immoral and undutiful manner by treating you with a lack of respect. Furthermore, considering society and the principle of utilitarianism, it can be argued that if every individual in society attempted to take their friends' ideas and profit from them, without the initial individual getting any profit, social welfare and happiness would not be maximised at all. 

Conversely, it can be argued that you should not be able to sue your friend, since it is irrelevant who initially fermented the idea. This is because when considering society and the business the idea was developed with, they still receive the same gains and losses from that product, regardless of who produced it. For example, if one looks at the invention of the vacuum, it could be said that it is meaningless to argue about who came up with the idea, and we should instead focus more on the fact that the idea was acted on and a product was developed.  However, it can be said that the idea and its development is intrinsically worth more value coming from you than it is from your friend. Furthermore, it can be said that in this scenario, your friend was morally in the wrong. So, it can be said that you should be able to sue your friend to receive a share of the profits in order to gain a recourse. 

In conclusion, it seems to be that you should be able to sue your friend for a share of profits if they take an idea you have created and developed it themselves. This is not only since the initial idea was your own possession, and so you should rightly obtain the rewards you are due, but also in order to get reparations for the injustice done to you by your friend.