I see you don't know how presumption of innocence works. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but the same applies to them as anyone else.

You can be sued for anything, whether true or not. In the court, it must be proven that you did what you are sued for. So it is either proven, or not, and then the court issues the verdict. If it is not, like in Microsoft's case, they are still innocent. It does not matter whether it was impossible to prove or Apple stopped pursing the case; the court said they are guilty. If you continue say they did it, it is a defamation.

Even without regarding the above, the case was really shaky. Microsoft using the same vendor through a chain (via Intel) as Apple does not mean they are "stealing". That vendor might learn something from working with them, but that does not imply what you said. Nevermind, that Video for Windows had somewhat different scope (video subsystem), than Quicktime (multimedia subsystem). For Apple, it was simply a negotiation card.

Look & feel lawsuit was literally the oh noes, they do similar thing as we do case.

Again you don’t know your history. Microsoft paid Apple a settlement fee as part of the overarching deal they made with Apple back in 1997.

The 1997 settlement was about making peace between these two companies. It had nothing to do with the 1994 lawsuit.

Btw, the result was that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law].."

If you want to know how it looks when Microsoft did stole something, look at Stacker. Entirely different evidence, entirely different result, including entirely punishment.

Again, you don’t know your history.

https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_...

Your batting average isn’t too high on this topic.