In my youth I learned a great many programming tricks by studying other
    people's code, including object code when source was not available.

While this more legal and perhaps more moral than stealing code, it's not
really any more ethical.  You have not paid to be taught, even if only by
studying the internals that you were not meant to see.  This is essentially
the difference between patent, copyright, and trade secret, right?  If my
device contains an algorithm that can't be patented or copyright due to the
funny ways that those laws work (ie can't patent algorithms!), then my only
alternative is to make the algorithm a trade secret and protect it by the
means available - any facility for getting around "standard means of
protection" is a threat to my business, requiring cost increases and such if
I want to start potting everything in epoxy or something.

That said, I think perhaps "most" programmers won't mind people learning
from their code, as long as you stay short of assorted forms of theft.  But
also I doubt that many people will spend $1000+ just to "learn some
programming tricks."

I've always felt that this is the differenece between artists and craftsmen.
A true artist will happilly try to tell you how he creates his art, in hopes
that you will be able to do so as well.  A great artist will be saddened
when no matter how much he helps, you just can't do it (since after all,
you're not a great artist.)  A craftsman, on the other hand, jealously
guards rather petty techniques he regards as his, and a base craftsman will
get pissed off when you manage to duplicate his feats, even if you did it on
your own...

BillW