Yes, that is wrong -- it seems covered by the ethics of lying/truth-telling (from Kant, it is contradictory: if lying were a universal rule, it would destroy the possibility of communication in general).
But IP is about more than just clear attribution. And clear attribution is not dependent on IP -- we can have it without the other IP features. So a justification of attribution is not sufficient to support IP too.
You haven't explained how they are different, what is the difference between a co-worker stealing your idea for personal gain and someone else in society doing the same?
In IP it's essentially about someone lying to society about the source of the idea.
The only difference I see is the organizational entities scope, but the ethic is the same.
IP is basically contractualized attribution.
Owning an idea as property is simply a societal contract that guarantee's you attribution for your idea.
If in my example the company chooses not to implement the idea, I still deserve credit for the idea correct, not someone else?
Perhaps I would not receive a promotion because it was never implemented and proven to be beneficial to the company, but that does not make stealing an idea ethically fine does it, just because it was not utilized?
In IP it's essentially about someone lying to society about the source of the idea.
Right here. If I print a copy of Lord of the Rings and sell it, and there is no difference between my copy and the official copy. Then there has been no lying to society Tolkien's name is written on the cover an attributed as the author. Full credit for the idea has been given. In your example full credit for authorship was not given.
But IP is about more than just clear attribution. And clear attribution is not dependent on IP -- we can have it without the other IP features. So a justification of attribution is not sufficient to support IP too.