If Person A designs a machine, and the design is made public in one way or another, and then Person B (independently of Person A) builds a machine (or writes a program) based on the design, Person B has not stolen anything from Person A.
Whether or not the design was stolen depends on whether A willingly made the design public. If not, it is theft.
Person A is not deprived of the design or their own ability to also build a corresponding machine. Person B has done nothing to Person A that he would be morally or economically required to 'compensate' Person A (or anyone else) for. When Person B has completed the machine, Person B is richer and no one is poorer.
You are really wrong in many of these statements. You need to study business and economics (the basics, not in detail) to understand that more the suppliers for a product, lower the demand per supplier, and therefore lower the selling price and profit. Where there's copycat B, there's bound to be other copycats C, D, E, etc. With so many suppliers of this machine, there will be a price war such that all suppliers will have to reduce their product prices or else go out of business. So, B having access to A's blueprints has caused A to reduce his selling price and profit. Another fact is B is making income off a design he did not create -- so B's a leech and a thief.
Punishing Person B for building the machine (or even just preventing him from doing so) is morally and economically absurd.
B's copycat machine may reduce A's profits or even bankrupt him, since he (A) has to expend time, energy and money to create the design, whereas B simply acquired the design for no cost. Since B has caused A economic harm, he is likely to be punished.