First, let's get a little more specific with what Apple did. As you noted, the Wikipedia article states that the original Mac OS was partially "bassed on the Lisa OS, previously released by Apple for the Lisa computer in 1983 and, as part of an agreement allowing Xerox to buy shares in Apple at a favourable rate, it also used concepts from the Xerox PARC Xerox Alto which Steve Jobs and several other Macintosh team members had previewed." Now, that "deal" implies that Apple "saw" Xerox work in exchange for Apple shares promise "in exchange for 'seeing' the work". I will note that you specifcally put "seeing" in quotes, which suggest that even you don't necessarily know what "seeing" really meant in terms of an agreement between Apple and Xerox. There is several basic ways that could have really played out. The first is that Apple offered up the ability to Xerox to purchase Apple shares at a favorable rate (which it NOT promising shares, as you put it) in exchange for explicit permission on Xerox's part to review the work that Xerox was doing and use it. Another possibility was that Xerox explicitly agree to let Apple review the Xerox work, but never gave explicit permission to use it but also did not give an explicit refusal to use it. The last possibility is that Xerox did explicitly agree to let them review the work, but also explicited denied them the use of that work.

Now, the last possibility seems unlikely. If that possibility was true, then I would think that Xerox would have sued Apple taking their intellectual properties when they had explicitedly agreed to only "see" it. I don't recall any such lawsuit OR any such claim. While I won't go so far as to claim that possibility is not possible, it certainly seem extremely unlikely. So that in essences leave the first two possibilities.

I would argue that more than likely in legal terms (I am no lawyer...I only pay one on TV when I am channeling my inner lawyer after staying in a Holiday Inn Express...;) ...as the saying might go) there is little difference between the two. While the second option does not give explicit permission for use, it would likely be found that any company who agrees to some form of payment into order to review some of their intellectual properties is giving implicit permission to use that intellectural properties unless the agreement specifically, explicited denied that right of use.

With that in mind, in either case of the two rather likely possibilities and the likelihood of the last possibility being very, very small if even realistically possible at all, the basic end result is that Apple PAID for the right to use that technology. Now, one might legitimately argue that they maybe got a GREAT deal...and thus might argue they "stole" it because of the good deal...just like someone might claim they got a "steal of a deal" on something bought and felt they really were able to dramatically under pay. I would argue back that if Xerox bought any decent number of share of Apple at that point, then they likely made a LOT of money off those shares. Early Apple shares split and grew enough that the people that go into Apple early made LOTS of money, included quite a few millionaires...much like people who got in early at Microsoft.

As to Microsoft "hiring away the brains that worked at Xerox and using them to build their version of a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system," I will note that at EVERY company that I have worked at, I have signed a form stating that any intellectual property that I develop while working at that company is the property of the company. To my knowledge that type of agreement is binding (but don't know if it has been tested in court...I assume it has...nor to I know the full extend of its coverage...i.e. if I develop an idea completely on my own at home using my own resources while I happen to work at a company, does that count as well). Now, I don't know if any of those employees that you claim Microsoft hired away had signed such an agreement or even if they did not sign such an agreement if such an agreement is merely a formality and those rights still exist for the employer. And I don't know if Microsoft used intellectual property that those people have developed while working at Xerox after Microsoft has hired them or if it was stuff they developed outside of Xerox. But, the point is that IF Microsoft DID use intellectual property that those people had developed at Xerox after hiring them for that purpose and those people where subject to provisions that their work will working for Xerox was the property of Xerox, then Microsoft stole it. And if so, then Xerox may not have cared as they were not really using that intellectual property having sold the right to use it to Apple. Now, I will admit that I really don't know if that is the way it played out or if it was less nefarious than that. But, I will note that Apple did sue Microsoft over items they felt Microsoft had "stolen" from them, and while many of those claims were dropped, 10 of those claims were NOT...but Apple later agreed to dismiss that case in exchange for Microsoft's "support" back in the 90s or so in terms of a cash investment in Apple and an agreement to develop and support stuff for the Mac platform and a cross license of some of their respective technologies (i.e. they "settled" the case in effect)...if I recall correctly. Thus, there are some apparently legitimate legal claims that were still viable and were never litigated in court...and we will never know if they would have gone anywere or not.

The point is that after all that is that there IS a legitimate claim that Microsoft stole ideas that Apple had legal rights to. Now, the reality is that we will likely never know if that legitimate claim is truth or not. It will always just be a claim.

Now, I will agree that both Apple and Microsoft have used other ideas that were not their own. Sometimes they have explicitly bought the use of thoes ideas, either before they used them or after the fact when some made a claim and they did a after the fact licensing agreement. It is certainly possible that both have used things that they have NOT paid for the right to use, but either that entity never made a beef about it, hasn't yet made beef about, or won't make a beef about it...for either of them. If there is a beef about something else, then most likely either Microsoft or Apple will fight it unless they feel it is easier or cheaper to just settle it. And if the settle it or lose the fight, then like most companies, they will likely sign some licensing agreement so that they can continue to use that idea.

FYI, In windows(talking vista)

• you can navigate through folders entirely by using the keyboard.
• you can customize each and every folder - color , background etc.
• I really dont understand what is confusing regading the directory structure.