The thing about lawsuits is, no matter how crushing and final the verdict may seem, there's always the appeal. In particular we're thinking about Microware's trademark infringement suit against Apple for naming the latest Macintosh operating system "Mac OS 9." Microware, in case you haven't been paying attention, has been using the name "OS-9" for well-nigh twenty years now, and registered it as a trademark in 1989. The reason for the suit isn't so much that Apple's using a similar name, but that Microware's OS-9 also just happens to be a computer operating system-- and one that's available for the PowerPC, at that. Customer confusion time! Or, at least, that's what Microware alleged.

However, the court didn't seem to agree. Apple announced a couple of weeks back that the case had been dismissed by the United States District Court, who ruled that Apple employed "fair use" when naming its product. Evidently the difference between a consumer operating system that only runs on Macs and an embedded real-time OS for smart blenders and automatic coffeemakers is a pretty vast gulf, at least in the court's opinion. But don't consider this plotline over just yet, because Microware just issued a press release announcing its intention to file an appeal. Why? Well, honestly, we're not all that sure; the stated purpose of the appeal is to "protect its intellectual property rights," but frankly, at this point, we just don't see how Apple using the name "Mac OS 9" affects Microware at all. Then again, that's just the entirely uninformed opinion of an outsider; maybe the Microware folks are just tired of people asking them, "Oh, so you guys do work for Apple, then?"

And there's always the chance that little, if anything, will come of Microware's appeal for a long time. Surely you remember Imatec and its billion-dollar ColorSync lawsuit. That case was almost laughed out of court; not only was Apple found not to have violated Imatec's patents, but the court also ruled that the patents in question weren't even Imatec's to begin with. Imatec issued one last press release announcing its intention to appeal-- and we haven't heard a word since January. (For a press-releasing fiend like Hanoch Shalit, that's really saying something.) In fact, news of the Apple lawsuit has finally been removed from Imatec's home page, and the only entry on the News page is that lonely January press release. So can we consider the ColorSync matter resolved? Not quite-- but if Imatec's quiet period is any indication, this may be the last we hear of the Microware appeal for many moons.

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple a few years back, the product list was a mess. There were eight kazillion products and they were all named with cryptic numbers that were meaningless unless you owned the secret decoder ring. For instance, is a Power Mac 8500 better than a 7600? Depends on what you mean by "better"; the 8x00 series was a minitower configuration and the 7x00 series had a desktop enclosure, but who would ever know that a priori? Uninformed customers would likely assume that an 8500 was faster than a 7600, which wasn't necessarily the case-- they both had 604 chips, but the early 8500 ran at 120 MHz while the 7600 ran at 132 MHz. Heck, you couldn't even assume that higher numbers in the same product line indicated faster or newer computers: the 7300 came out after the 7600, and ran at 180 or 200 MHz. Jane, stop this crazy thing!

We much prefer the current product list of four lines: a consumer desktop (iMac), a consumer laptop (iBook), a pro desktop (Power Mac), and a pro laptop (PowerBook). It's simple, elegant, consistent, and there are no goofy numbers, other than the clock speed of the particular model. There's only one problem: a slight lack of choice. You may have noticed this yourself. Let's say you want a Mac portable. Well, you have to choose between the iBook and the PowerBook. But say the iBook is perfect with one small exception: you need a video-out port, and the USB adapters on the market aren't fast enough for your purposes. Well, now your only choice is a big, expensive PowerBook-- whose 14" screen, FireWire ports, card slots, and faster processor may all be serious overkill for you. Plus, maybe you really had your heart set on Tangerine. Choice and flexibility are the sacrifices Apple made for the sake of tightening up the product lines; we think it was the right move, but a little more choice might be nice.

Here's another classic example: the iMac. Perhaps the $999 one does everything you need it to do; it's plenty fast for your purposes, you don't need FireWire or DVD-ROM, and you don't need any slots or bays for expansion. You even like Blueberry. But you do want a bigger monitor because you like to putter around with graphics and layout, or maybe you feel that playing games on a 15" screen just doesn't cut it. Well, unless you want to use the iMac's monitor-out port and put a second monitor next to the iMac itself, now you're looking at a G4-- whose base price is $600 more than an entry-level iMac, and then you've still got to buy a monitor. You're caught between a rock and a hard place. A hard, expensive place.

If you've been bitten by the above scenario, you might be interested in the dirt that Mac OS Rumors is dishing. It's rumored that Apple is considering a monitorless iMac-- a teeny little desktop unit with a video port so customers can hook it up to whatever monitor they damn well please. That might shut up the constant whining about how the iMac's screen is too small; and at a $699 price point, you could pick up a 17"-iMac bundle from Apple for about $1200. The Apple Store could even give price cuts to people who order a monitorless iMac (hmmm, should we call it an itsyMac?) together with a Studio Display. It's crazy enough to work.

The truly ironic scenario, of course, would be if Compaq wound up suing Apple for trade dress violation. You've probably seen commercials for the iPaq, Compaq's iMac ripoff in name, if not in style. The "legacy-free" iPaq's specs may sound a bit familiar: no slots, no drive bays-- nothing but USB ports, a network connector, and sound jacks, plus a VGA port. So imagine the hubbub if Apple released an itsyMac that's roughly the same thing, only a Mac. Would Compaq's lawyers have the chutzpah to file suit?

What better way to start off the weekend than with a quick but ominous portent of doom? Hey, it beats workin'. A couple of days ago we mentioned that MacInsider, a rumors site that shut itself down amid mounting scandal in 1997, appears to be gearing up for a rebirth. Visiting the page now lists a teaser promising "MacInsider Reborn," and some links to email addresses so excited visitors can request advertising info or submit juicy tidbits. There's nothing so frightening about that, right?

But then faithful viewer Tony Misasi (who's actually been tuning into AtAT long enough to remember the original MacInsider scandal!) had to go digging a little deeper. The previous scandal came to light based largely on DNS registration records, which strongly suggested that MacInsider was run by a Mac reseller called Computers Plus, who misrepresented itself to advertisers and violated Apple nondisclosure agreements to post its "inside info." So Tony figured he'd look up the registration info for macinsider.com. Says Tony, "pay particular attention to the contact name... Very ominous and secretive." For, you see, macinsider.com is registered to someone known only as "The Boss."

Now, either Bruce Springsteen moved to Tempe, AZ and is getting into the Mac rumormongering business, or "The Boss" is a bald, monocled man in a Nehru jacket who smiles evilly while stroking his white Persian cat. Take your pick. Personally, we're opting for the latter, and so we eagerly await the relaunch of MacInsider: Macintosh News, Rumors, and World Domination. We smell drama.