So since jewelry is not money, does that mean that robbing a jewelry store means stealing nothing at all?
I believe it was a breach of contract. Each transaction was signed by the sender with the unsigned understanding that those transactions would be signed and reversed upon request. But I think Hightax's point is that bitcoins literally (even digitally) are nothing. I don't think we have adequate physical metaphors for them. It'll be interesting how this case defines the community verified signature of an assertion.
Alice sends an IOU to Bob, verified by the peanut gallery
Bob gets the IOU stolen by Eve, also verified by the peanut gallery
Alice requests IOU back from Bob
But Bob can't get that transaction verified by the peanut gallery.
I'd say the peanut gallery is complicit in Eve's crime and conspire against Alice (or Bob).
(or some other absurd interpretations)