That's a sad story, but you make sympathy difficult... if it's legal, it isn't stealing, and calling it that is dishonest. The problem seems more related to your great expectations; loss (or, more precisely, premature expiration) of unvested NQSOs & RSUs is SOP for terminations & layoffs, which is essentially what happened to you from the seller's (INTU) perspective. In the case of a sale, any special considerations (e.g. retention of unvested options) for employees who accept the transfer are essentially the buyer's concern rather than the seller's. Buyers may be motivated to sweeten the deal by negating any transfer-related losses to encourage employees to transfer, e.g., but that's at their discretion. Nothing has been stolen from you, rather legally binding agreements have been strictly followed - did you expect anything less? Yes, layoffs suck (I've been there), but they're a fact of life, and at least you have an opportunity to not join the ranks of unemployed. During a recession, you're unlikely to find unwarranted generosity in the corporate arena. If you're unhappy with the terms of your employment-at-will agreement, you could always start your own business. Your sense of entitlement, however, is unwarranted, and claims of theft are disingenuous at best.
agree with intuit_noob. i do not see why any company would have an obligation to grant you unvested stock. usually this is $$ that will vest over time after you have done more work for the company. seeing that you are no longer part of the company, why would they gran this? the burden is on the the buying company. if they do not treat their employees properly, then they will leave the company and the buyer would be losing out on the recent purchase. take this up with endurance. leave the company if you are unsatisfied.