The marketplace sometimes rewards thieves more than creators, which is the historical reason for laws that regulate intellectual property rights. You may disagree with current laws (I personally think the current term of copyright protection is much too long), but I have lived somewhere where enforcement of intellectual property rights was weak at one time, and that was not good for innovation there.
AFTER EDIT: Both of the first two kind replies to my comment ask for some more details about what I observed overseas. Early 1980s Taiwan was the land of "Rolex" watches sold on street corners, pirated United States bestsellers in English-language bookstores for tourists, and general violation of patent, copyright, and trademark rights. Every country in the world seems to go through a stage of copying rather than innovating in its economic development. Eventually, as Taiwan democratized, it became apparent that international trade relations would OF COURSE be helped by meeting treaty obligations to protect intellectual property from other countries. Moreover, it was discovered that there are plenty of creative, inventive people in Taiwan, who created more and invented more as gradually domestic individuals and companies received greater legal protection of intellectual property rights. Innovation is hard to sustain where copying is the path to quick riches. But innovation becomes a more reasonable path for investment of personal time and effort if being first to make something new allows some LIMITED time (I'm with everyone here in desiring intellectual property rights not to extend too long in time) to enter the market and see what consumers think of the innovation.
So, specifically in software, if it is simple for "thieves" to "steal" the work, it probably wasn't worthy of protection in the first place.
I will admit, you can be a great engineer and a terrible businessman, and thus fumble a first-mover advantage, but I don't think patents are the solution to that.
You don't have to be "a terrible businessman" if you're, say, some guy in a basement and the "thief" is a large company with the ability to copy quickly (even if badly) and deep marketing and production pockets. By the time you're able to broadcast your innovation beyond your neighborhood, you're already competing against the proverbial "major national brand" of the product you invented, as seen on TV and available in a store near you.
AFTER EDIT: Both of the first two kind replies to my comment ask for some more details about what I observed overseas. Early 1980s Taiwan was the land of "Rolex" watches sold on street corners, pirated United States bestsellers in English-language bookstores for tourists, and general violation of patent, copyright, and trademark rights. Every country in the world seems to go through a stage of copying rather than innovating in its economic development. Eventually, as Taiwan democratized, it became apparent that international trade relations would OF COURSE be helped by meeting treaty obligations to protect intellectual property from other countries. Moreover, it was discovered that there are plenty of creative, inventive people in Taiwan, who created more and invented more as gradually domestic individuals and companies received greater legal protection of intellectual property rights. Innovation is hard to sustain where copying is the path to quick riches. But innovation becomes a more reasonable path for investment of personal time and effort if being first to make something new allows some LIMITED time (I'm with everyone here in desiring intellectual property rights not to extend too long in time) to enter the market and see what consumers think of the innovation.