Well, as matter of fact Jobs was engaged in intimidation aimed to maintain an arrangement that has been found to be illegal (the "anti-poaching" 'agreement').

Really good point. I really really should have read the full article, not just the title, and the highlighted section. I thought I saw this text almost verbatim before having to do with a licensing dispute.

In the same way that spatial manipulation of an object from the boundaries defined by its legal owner is considered theft.

but that's not what is happening. You are coercing someone via threats and intimidation to join you in an illegal act. don't get confused by the fact it's described with 'business sounding" words.

Isn't a mugging simply identifying the consequence of a business decision?