The tricky bit about long-awaited events is that the longer you've been waiting for them, the greater the chance that you'll be let down. Think "Phantom Menace"; sure, it was entertaining, yeah, it was fun-- but did it really live up to the hype and the sixteen-year wait? Having finally seen it, we really had to wonder how many of those stalwart souls who slept on the sidewalk to get tickets felt seriously ripped off. So as we sat down to watch the premiere of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" on TNT, we were just a little cautious; after all, we've been waiting for this epic tale of Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates for about a year now. And as the release date drew ever closer, more and more cool details kept our interests piqued. The dashing Noah Wyle as Steve. Übergeek Anthony Michael Hall as Bill. A script that focused more on the clash of personalities than the technology itself. Soap opera elements like Steve dropping acid and Bill wrecking Paul Allen's car with a bulldozer. How could we not get excited?

So our mindset when "Pirates" started was much like our attitude going into "Phantom Menace"-- we were almost expecting to be let down. And, again like with "Phantom," we were pleasantly surprised; "Pirates" was an enjoyable romp. The performances were solid, the plot was funny and engaging, and while there were definitely some distinct liberties taken with the actual history of what happened, overall, we thought the flick was pretty accurate for a dramatization. We have to wonder how it would go over with people who aren't already somewhat familiar with the story, though. Could it capture the attention and imagination of Joe or Jane Average? We imagine so, if for no other reasons than to see Noah Wyle play a psychotic jerk and to see the world's richest man shown as a total loser with the ladies. C'mon, Bill Gates doing roller disco? That's ratings gold, baby!

To us, the bottom line is this: "Pirates" may not be a great film, but it works darn well as the soap opera it should be. Probably the biggest letdown was the ending, which redefines the word "abrupt" in much the same way that, say, Calista Flockhart redefines the phrase "a trifle thin." One second we're at Steve Jobs' thirtieth birthday party, just three months before he got canned by Sculley, and the next we're at Macworld Expo Boston '97, as Steve introduces Bill Gates' Big Giant Head as Apple's new "partner." Er, did we blink or something? Basically, there's just too much to tell to stuff into a two-hour movie, even if the focus is supposedly the personalities of the players involved. Mini-series, anyone?

So you've seen "Pirates of Silicon Valley" and marveled at the audacity of Bill Gates selling IBM an operating system that he didn't yet possess. Your mind reeled at the greed that would pay the poor developer of QDOS a mere $50,000 for an operating system that Gates knew would net him millions. So is "Redmond Justice" the sequel to "Pirates," at least from the Gates half of the story? Is this the tale of how the karma wheel spins back around and kicks Bill in the kiester? We won't know until the trial is over, but throughout the proceedings we've seen more than enough evidence that Gates likes to play dirty. Heck, sometimes the nature of the evidence itself is evidence that Gates likes to play dirty. Remember that terrific videotaped "test" that showed Windows performance degrading after Internet Explorer had been removed? When government law-talking guy David Boies pointed out on-screen discrepancies that proved the "test" had been doctored, we witnessed one of the great TV courtroom moments of all time.

One would think that after getting caught with their collective pants down, Microsoft's legal team would be just a little gunshy about introducing fake evidence again. But if The Register is correct, it's hard to wean an old dog from old tricks. Apparently a "highly dubious" piece of evidence could possibly be enough to hold Gates, et al in contempt of court. See, Microsoft's lawyers recently introduced some Gates email into evidence-- some memo in which Gates claims that the purchase of Netscape by AOL effectively nullifies the government's entire case. The snag is that the email in question was "written specifically to be leaked" to the press last year; it was essentially the same kind of spin job as those letters to the editor from "industry players" which were actually concocted by Microsoft's public relations staff. The Gates email was essentially a "press release," and not real mail that the press mysteriously managed to get their hands on. Heck, the government even cited email about the email, in which Microsoft PR people discuss just how to leak the memo to maximize its press coverage.

So there's really no question that the memo was "cooked." The $40 billion question is, why on earth is Microsoft entering this into evidence? Either their lawyers are sadly misinformed about the very case they're handling, or they're really bad at faking evidence. Given the faked tape demo earlier, we're inclined to believe the latter, which, if true, is not likely to put Microsoft in very good standing with an already impatient judge. A third possibility is that the entire Microsoft legal team is either congenitally stupid or on some serious drugs, which we won't rule out entirely. Just about the only thing that could make "Redmond Justice" more exciting these days would be a surprise mandatory drug test that shows the whole Microsoft team full to the brim with illegal opiates... Maybe during July Sweeps?

It seems like its been a while since there have been any big management shake-ups over at Apple. The last really big one, of course, was the ousting of Gil Amelio and the reinstatement of Steve Jobs at the helm. That was a couple of years ago, though, and since then, we're hard-pressed to think of any changes that were significant enough to make waves. (Disclaimer: our collective memory probably isn't to be trusted on this matter, since we tend to forget things that aren't on TV.) So we weren't entirely prepared for the news that Mark Foster, Apple's Vice President of PowerBook Development, has resigned-- the PowerBook Zone broke the story last week.

When we say "resigned," we're using the word in the Amelio sense; in the Zone's words, Foster was "basically fired" over "a difference in style" with Jon Rubenstein, Apple's senior veep of Hardware Engineering. We're not quite how to interpret that; while we imagine it's possible the two couldn't see eye-to-eye on matters of wardrobe choice, we're going to take a chance and assume that it was a clash of personalities, and not tie patterns, that led to the split. Reportedly the delay over the shipment of Apple's latest "bronze" PowerBooks was also a factor in the decision, so those of you who were calling for heads to roll because of the delays, you got your wish: metaphorically speaking, Foster's cranium just rolled right out the door.

That alone would be news, because it shows that Apple is getting tough about product shipment delays. But more importantly, Apple plans not to hire a replacement for Foster; apparently PowerBook development is now being swallowed whole by the group working on Apple's desktop systems. Both product lines now fall under the watchful eye of Glen Miranker. What does this mean for the future of PowerBook development? Well, some people are bemoaning the change, while others are speculating that it'll benefit both product lines. Personally, we have no idea what to expect, but we know this: over the last couple of years, desktop systems from Apple have shipped more or less on time, while PowerBooks have lagged. Make of that what you will, but we're cautiously optimistic about the shift.