Microsoft created Windows by stealing and copying Apple hardware and software.
Executive summary
The simple claim that "Microsoft created Windows by stealing and copying Apple hardware and software" overstates what happened: Windows and the Macintosh both drew on earlier research at Xerox PARC, Microsoft had begun work on Windows before seeing a Mac prototype, and a 1985 licensing deal and later court rulings largely foreclosed Apple’s copyright theory — Apple sued in 1988 and lost most of its claims in court [1] [2] [3]. The historical record shows influence, licensing, and legal limits on “look and feel” protection rather than a clean-cut case of theft.
1. Origins and shared ancestry: Xerox PARC, the Mac, and Windows
Graphical user interfaces did not spring solely from Apple; key concepts such as windows, icons, menus and mice trace back to Xerox PARC, which influenced both the Macintosh team and subsequent GUI efforts elsewhere, meaning similar features across systems reflected common lineage as much as copying [2] [1].
2. Timeline matters: Microsoft’s Windows work began before the Mac demo
Contemporaneous accounts and later histories note that Microsoft had begun developing Windows before Bill Gates and his team saw the Macintosh prototype, and Microsoft was already building GUI-oriented software (Windows 1.0 appeared in 1985), which complicates a narrative that Microsoft simply lifted an already-complete Mac design [1] [4].
3. The 1985 license: permission that undercut Apple’s later claims
Apple and Microsoft negotiated a November 1985 agreement in which Apple licensed certain “visual displays” from the Macintosh for use in Windows 1.0 and related Microsoft products; courts later interpreted that license very broadly, finding that many of Apple’s complained-of elements were covered by that contract [3] [5].
4. Apple sued — and the courts mostly sided with Microsoft
Apple filed a high-profile suit in 1988 alleging Microsoft had copied 189 GUI elements in Windows 2.0; after years of litigation the district court and the Ninth Circuit rejected most of Apple’s claims, concluding that either the 1985 license covered those displays or that many elements were not protectable by copyright (merger, scènes à faire, functionality), leaving only a tiny subset of disputed icons as potentially infringing [6] [3] [7].
5. What “stealing” would mean here — legal, technical, and practical limits
Legally, the courts made clear that companies cannot get patent‑like control over a general “look and feel”; many GUI features were functional, standardized, or unoriginal and thus not copyrightable, and the license Apple granted further limited remedies — so while Windows adopted Mac-like features in appearance and interaction, the judicial and contractual record does not support an unqualified label of theft [7] [5].
6. Interpretation and legacy: influence, rivalry, and negotiated détente
The episode left a messy legacy: it showed how influence, developer relationships, and business deals shape platforms — Microsoft continued to evolve Windows into a market-dominant platform while Apple pressed other claims and later reached commercial agreements with Microsoft in the 1990s, but the courts and the 1985 license tempered Apple’s ability to portray Windows as simply stolen Mac hardware/software [2] [8] [5]. Sources used include court opinions and contemporaneous histories; reporting documents influence and dispute rather than a single act of theft.