With all the hubbub over the Microsoft vs. Department of Justice battle, it's easy to overlook Sun's own little legal attack on Microsoft, intended to prevent the use of the "Java-compatible" logo on products that use Microsoft's latest implementation of the Sun programming language. (Faithful viewers will recall the flap that occurred when Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 4.0, whose Java version effectively "broke" the Java specification by removing certain required components and adding others that were purely of Microsoft construction.)

Luckily, Sm@rt Reseller keeps us all up to date with a status report on the Sun lawsuit. It appears that Sun succeeded in having the case transferred to a federal judge last month, and just a couple of days ago, that judge refused Microsoft's request to postpone an upcoming hearing until the end of June. The hearing, intended to determine whether or not Sun should be granted a preliminary injunction against Microsoft to prevent the use of the Java logo, will occur on February 22nd, as originally planned. One of Sun's strongest pieces of evidence in its favor is the infamous "Maritz Presentation," which the DoJ has also used in its arguments against Microsoft. In the presentation, Microsoft's Vice President of Platforms and Applications reveals Microsoft's concern that Netscape and Java would make Windows "devalued" and "eventually replaceable." In order to prevent this from happening, Maritz proposed a way for Microsoft to get "control over Java" and tie it back to the Windows interface and API in order to "neutralize" both Java and Netscape.

Scott McNealy, Sun's longtime Microsoft detractor, is probably feeling ambivalent about the DoJ case; on the one hand, it must make him all warm and Christmassy inside to see Microsoft's stock keep slipping lower as public resentment grows; but on the other hand, the high-profile case is stealing the spotlight from Sun's own lawsuit, which appears to have been filed for publicity as much as for fairness. C'est la guerre.

And speaking of the DoJ case, Infoworld now reports that Microsoft is both shocked and amazed to hear that the DoJ wanted Internet Explorer disabled, and not necessarily removed in its entirety. "What threatens to convert this case into a farce is the DOJ's stunning changes of position--" so saith the Legal Gods of Redmond. You can read their full response here.

Microsoft's take on things is that they did exactly what the DoJ wanted: they ripped IE out of Windows by the roots, rendering it unbootable. That's what the judge ordered, that's what they did, and now they simply cannot believe that now the DoJ is "changing what they want." Hands up-- who's laughing as hard as we are right now?

Suppose anyone is buying this "righteous indignation" angle? Suppose Microsoft actually expects anyone to buy it? It's becoming clearer and clearer to AtAT that Microsoft is begging for some "correction," Shining-style. It's all just a cry for help, we see that now. Sheesh.

There is nothing new under the sun. Apple's bled almost $2 billion in red ink over the past couple of years, according to a Reuters story, and that trend will continue next the time the company reports its quarterly results. What's particularly galling, however, is that the loss may again be tied to inventory write-offs, just as in the past. (As every Apple-watcher knows, Apple has never been able to forecast its way out of a wet paper bag-- even when that bag is left untied and has had the bottom cut out.)

This quarter, it's the 8600's that are sitting in warehouses collecting dust. Sales of the Powermac G3's have been "brisk," but it seems that nobody wants the older 8600. Not a big surprise, actually, since the G3's have a newer, faster processor. But the 8600 is still a solid performer, and if Apple had only cut its price or increased its rebate, we'd probably see them moving pretty well. With luck, Apple will clue in and slash prices to provide and incentive for people to adopt these poor homeless workstations.

On the plus side, the build-to-order scheme recently launched with the unveiling of the Apple Store six weeks ago should help alleviate the "sales prediction myopia" problem in the future. With build-to-order, Apple doesn't have to guess what kind of machines people are going to want to buy-- they can build them as people ask for them. Here's hoping it works.

And by the way-- the Apple quarterly financial results are due to be posted on January 14th. So start exercising those prediction muscles in preparation for the second quarterly AtAT "Beat the Analysts" contest! Register the closest guess to Apple's actual reported quarterly results and win some old and/or silly software from our Baffling Vault of Antiquity!™" We'll post details once the analysts' predictions are unveiled.