There goes Robert Morgan, making people nervous again-- but we really can't fault him this time, because the information he's relating is appearing via other sources, as well. So as creepy as it sounds, we may well be facing a serious shake-up in Macland as Motorola prepares for a "major revamp" of its Semiconductor Products Sector. That's the group that makes PowerPC's-- you know, those funky little Pentium-crushing chips that serve as the brain in every single Apple-branded computer made today. Apparently SPS may be tranformed from a Motorola-only unit into a joint venture with a company called SGS Thomson (recently renamed STMicroelectronics). All kinds of speculation and possibilities surface in Morgan's RFI Report, and similar info and thoughts surfaced independently in a MacTimes Network article.

The Doomsday Scenario is, of course, that once STMicroelectronics gains control, they could simply decide to halt all further development of desktop-class PowerPC's. Not that there's any particular reason to believe that the company would want to do such a thing, but desktop computers are simply not their bread and butter, so the possibility remains. What would Apple do if PowerPC's suddenly cease being available? It's not like they could switch over to using Intel chips overnight, and even if such a thing were possible from a technical standpoint, so much of Apple's newfound credibility in the marketplace comes from its hyping of the G3 chip being faster than the Pentium II. If Apple switched to a Pentium variant, all that credibility goes out the window.

Remember, none of this is carved in stone. The merger itself may never even happen. But the mere possibility reveals just how dependent Apple is on Motorola's continued development of PowerPC's suitable for use in Macs. Sure, IBM's doing PowerPC development too, but their focus is on their own high-end AIX servers, not the Mac OS-- and therefore they aren't adding in cool Mac-friendly technologies like Altivec. Relying so strongly on Motorola puts Apple in a potentially shaky position, and should Motorola hand over the management reins of SPS to another company, who's to say that said company will want to keep cranking out PowerPC's for Apple? Sure makes life exciting, doesn't it?

The big "Redmond Justice" trial creeps ever closer-- can't you just smell it? In a mere two weeks (barring unforeseen delays, of course, but when does that ever happen in a lawsuit?), Microsoft and the Justice Department will finally square off in court to resolve the issue of Microsoft's alleged anticompetitive business practices. And you can tell that the showdown's getting close, because subpoenas are flying every which way. The most interesting one involves Microsoft's desperate attempt to secure some confidential taped interviews with Netscape executives from a couple of MIT and Harvard professors. TechWeb's got the sordid details.

Apparently professors David Yoffie and Michael Cusumano just finished writing a book on Netscape called Competing in Internet Time, due out soon. For this book, they conducted interviews with several Netscape employees in order to get a picture of Netscape's successes and blunders during its early days. Information from these candid conversations appeared in early pre-print excerpts of the book, and that prompted Microsoft to subpoena the complete interview tapes, on the basis that they presumably contain evidence that Netscape's woes are caused by Netscape's mistakes-- not Microsoft's allegedly anticompetitive behavior.

Needless to say, the professors (with the full legal support of their respective universities) are fighting the subpoenas tooth and nail, citing that the interviews were conducted under "strict agreements of confidentiality." Their lawyers claim that Microsoft's subpoenas therefore violate their First Amendments rights and their rights to academic freedom. It's up to the court to decide whether or not Microsoft can get its hands on the private tapes, and the clock's ticking...

Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause, if you will, for this year's "Internet Man of the Year:" Steven P. Jobs. Yessiree, Apple's interim head honcho recently received the award from the SkyNet Internet Collective for his "outstanding achievements in the area of Information Technology and Product Innovation for the Internet." Get the whole story at MacCentral.

And just what prompted the bestowing of this great honor on the inimitable Mr. Jobs? Generally speaking, SkyNet claims it's the way that his leadership has brought Apple back into the spotlight as "the leader in innovative and user-friendly computer products." We certainly can't argue with that. But in a more specific sense, SkyNet is talking about the iMac and how it represents a dramatic step toward their golden vision of the Internet being as integral part of the home as the telephone is today. And we can't fault their logic-- the iMac is, by most accounts, an inexpensive and simple way to cruise the 'net in style. But we're a little surprised to hear SkyNet's honorary chairman refer to the iMac as "the first dedicated Internet terminal."

"Dedicated Internet terminal?" That's news to us. Apparently, iMac owners the world over are compromising the design integrity of their iMacs by using them for playing games, writing novels, balancing checkbooks, organizing CD collections, and other mundanely non-Internet-related stuff. We think that SkyNet might be taking the "i" in "iMac" a little too seriously; sure, the iMac is great for Internet access of all flavors, but really no more so than any other modern Macintosh. Not that that's a bad thing, by any means. But we think of the iMac's name as more of a catchy, evocative moniker and a great marketing ploy than a true description of the system's raison d'être. The iMac is a Mac-- an innovative Mac, and an Internet-friendly one to boot, but by no means is it even close to being a dedicated Internet-only device. But hey, whatever hauls in the awards, you know? After all, if a grainy black and white commercial based around an arguably ungrammatical phrase (yes, we've heard all the arguments both ways-- please don't go there) can win an Emmy, who are we to argue with Apple's marketing strategies?