Why should Star Wars hold the copyright on anything space related? I don't hear Alien (1979) ever been called a Star Wars imitator.
Alien was an original story, with no preexisting expectations ... well, it is Jaws in Space, and has a lot of Hitchcockian suspense, but those are stylistic influences. The plot really only works in the context of space travel (actually, I could see it working 100 years previously as a Conan Doyle/Haggard/Buroughs type of Lost World fantasy, but since those empty spaces in the map have long since been filled in extraterrestrial exploration is needed to find a new lifeform that weird)
and when it came out, Alien was very distinct from Star Wars and its many imitators, because of its ideas (more hard scifi with the biological lifecycle) and tone (aimed at grownups), it was quite original for its time
Star Wars on the other hand was a pastiche of Flash Gordon serials, John Ford westerns, Errol Flynn swashbucklers, and WWII dogfights, with very little science underneath all that genre fiction (at least til decades later when Lucas tried to explain The Force as a type of mitochondria)
there were a lot of blatant Star Wars imitations at the time: Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, the Flash Gordon film with the Queen soundtrack ... Alien was notably different than all that stuff, and that's probably why we still remember it today
Bond by contrast is an established series of spy adventures, fantastickal but bound by a certain set of genre conventions, that's why the Star Wars trendhopping was so noteworthy ... again, at the time, the influence is probably less conspicuous now, decontextualized
to be fair the Bond films always were spy-fi rather than pure espionage, what with Q's gadgets and the villains schemes, but Moonraker at its time was a major deviation from expectations and the reason was obvious, every damn thing was Star Wars influenced for the next couple of years
.
.
.
what I always wonder is why Moonraker was left til last? even scheduled to be adapted after the book of short stories?
it seems like Diamonds are Forever used more of Fleming's Moonraker plot than Moonraker did (popular zillionaire industrialist turns out to be villain hiding in plain sight) ... did they figure theyd already used the story therefor there was nothing left to adapt?
I would hardly call the Moonraker film an adaptation of Fleming's book anyway. They share a title and a villain and nothing more.
I would also say Holly Goodhead is essentially Gala Brand except she works for the CIA instead of Scotland Yard. Goodhead's placement within the villains operation, scientific expertise, and departmental rivalry with Bond all parallel Brand's role in the book
movie Drax however is very different than book Drax. the revelation of book Drax's true identity is key to the plot, movie Drax doesn't really have a backstory except he's very very very very rich. Fleming gets a lot out of the fact Drax is boorish new money, and therefor M suspects him. Movie Drax has impeccable manners and taste, he appears very old money. I think the Willard-Whyte-is-secretly-Blofeld revelation is much closer to book Drax than movie Drax is.
the V2 style rocket of the book is inescapably dated however, both technologically and also because the memory of London's experience during the War is no longer so recent. one way or another that had to be updated.