Despite a groundswell of Super Bowl commercials being planned by large tech companies like Qualcomm, Oracle, Sun, and (of course) Intel (and their dancing Bunny Men), the buzz is that our own Apple Computer (one of the first tech companies ever to broadcast ads during the big game) will not be participating this year. ZDNet reports that Apple will give it a miss, citing the astronomical costs involved.

While we at AtAT can't say we're terribly surprised, we are at least a little disappointed. The original Mac was launched during the 1984 Super Bowl with the legendary Chiat-Day commercial directed by Ridley Scott, so another groundbreaking commercial by the same ad agency during the same event fourteen years later (just after the end of a successful quarter) would be a great way for Apple to announce that they're back. Alas, a $47 million profit isn't enough to justify the "outrageous" big bucks required to buy a Super Bowl time slot. Instead, Apple's launching a new series of "Think Different" ads within the next few weeks.

And, really, is Apple back enough to tell the world during the Super Bowl? That point is debatable. Perhaps next year, when we should see Apple NC's, the full-blown version of Rhapsody (as well as Allegro), G3 Macs running at 400 MHz and higher, etc. If Apple can sustain its profitability through this time next year, maybe it'll have the dough to shell out on putting together a kick-ass commercial to show during the Super Bowl.

In this episode of "Redmond Justice," the Computer Reseller News reports that the panel for Microsoft's appeal of Judge Jackson's preliminary injunction has been set. The three judges to decide the case are A. Randolph Raymond, Stephen Williams, and Laurence Silberman. Microsoft drew at least one lucky card with Silberman, who has sided with Microsoft in the past-- ironically, to prevent the addition of further restrictions to the 1995 consent decree which Microsoft is now accused of violating.

Arguments in the appeal are scheduled to commence on April 21st. Until then, though, Jackson's injunction is in full effect, which means that the cranky judge can still sanction Microsoft in the ongoing contempt hearing (which attempts to determine whether Microsoft violated the injunction and should be fined $1 million a day). A ruling is expected next week, following closing arguments, and if Jackson's demeanor is any indication, Microsoft may just have to pay up.

Microsoft, however, seems as cocky as ever, as corporate public relations manager Michael Murray claims that they "feel pretty good about the hearing." (What channel were they watching?) He further claims that the hearing shows that Microsoft is "complying in good faith" and that "three months ago, they wanted the court to hold us in contempt for keeping Microsoft Internet Explorer in Windows 95. Now they want to hold us in contempt for taking it out." Interesting. Historically it's been Apple Marketing that's been smoking something "funny," but apparently now it's this Murray who didn't just say no... Note to Mikey: The judge is obviously pissed off. You might want to turn up the humility a notch until he makes his decision.

Of course, as it turns out, Microsoft's plan to crush Netscape seems to be working quite well. Each quarter the browser share numbers show Netscape's customer base shrinking in relation to the growing pool of netsurfers using Internet Explorer as their browser. And while most studies show that Netscape still holds a small lead, at least one study shows that Microsoft has pulled ahead in the race.

None of this is good news for Netscape, who now projects an $85 million loss this quarter, in stark contrast to analysts' predictions of a decent profit. Netscape now plans to axe 400 employees to help stem the red ink incurred by Microsoft's slashing attack. An Associated Press story has the details. Those 400 jobs account for about 13% of Netscape's total work force. The final financial numbers and layoff announcements will be made on January 27th.

What effect will this news have in the ongoing "Redmond Justice" drama? Microsoft's defense tactic of pointing at Netscape's continued dominance to counter accusations of antitrust behavior will soon no longer be an option. Perhaps you'd like to jump into the deep end of the conspiracy theory pool, where the water's nice and warm and you can suggest crazy things like this: Perhaps Machiavellian higher-ups at Netscape are losing marketshare, posting losses, and cutting jobs on purpose, with the top-secret intent of trying to influence a Microsoft loss in the continuing Department of Justice case. Of course, if you suggested anything as offbeat as that, people would call you crazy. Up for the challenge? ;-)