Apple, like many multi-billion-dollar companies, faces a lot of lawsuits. A lot of them. But by far the biggest, nastiest, and more potentially damaging of them all is the Imatec ColorSync lawsuit. By now you know the drill: a small company called Imatec is suing Apple for patent infringement in its ColorSync color management technology, and they are asking for $1.1 billion in damages. What's more, they are alleging that Apple was fully aware of the patents and violated them willfully, which means that if Imatec wins, they could possibly be awarded treble damages-- and Apple would be out $3.3 billion. Now those are high stakes.

We don't know a whole lot about Apple's stance on the whole thing, except that they refused to settle out of court and they issued a single public statement to the effect that the suit is groundless, because products that used the color management techniques for which Imatec claims it holds patents were available for sale in the U.S. in 1985-- three years before Imatec was even founded. As for Imatec, they've been very public about the whole sordid mess, and their latest press release on the matter claims that Apple is unable to provide any evidence of those 1985 products, and so Imatec is increasingly confident that it will win the case.

Now, it's obvious where our loyalties are, and we're not going to try to pass ourselves off as an impartial observer in this case. But that being said, does it seem to anyone else that Imatec's press releases about this suit all sound like a pro wrestler's self-congratulatory round of insults to his opponent just before the match? It's little things, like Imatec's use of quotation marks around the word "products," and the way that in every single one of these press releases, they state that they are "more confident than ever" that they will win. And that their inevitable victory will "seriously affect Apple's business." Now, why keep mentioning that part? And why are they suing for $1.1 billion, when it's perfectly obvious that Apple could in no way have derived that much income from ColorSync? It seems clear to us that Imatec's using cheap scare tactics to try to squeeze Apple for an out-of-court cash settlement; the stakes are so high, that settling almost seems better than any risk of losing. Don't misunderstand us-- if Apple's done wrong, than they should make amends. It's just that the whole Imatec thing smacks of legal extortion. No sir-- we don't like it.

So for a long time now we've been going on about the inadequacies of the iMac when it comes to 3D gaming. The revision A models have an ATI RAGE II+ accelerator, which is pretty much hopeless. The revision B iMacs are a big step forward, as they have a RAGE Pro chip and extra texture memory-- pretty cool, but not quite as fast as a Voodoo card, let alone a Voodoo 2. The rumored "C2" iMac models due sometime in the middle of next year are rumored to include a RAGE 128, which will absolutely scream. It's a good progression; it shows that Apple's serious when it comes to gaming, and that the higher-ups are aware of how important games are to a family buying a home computer.

Unfortunately, the forward-thinking C2 doesn't help those existing iMac owners who want to play Unreal in all its 3D-accelerated, texture-smoothed glory; the RAGE chip in the iMac is soldered to the motherboard and is not replaceable with a faster model, and the iMac has no PCI slots, so buying a separate 3D accelerator card isn't an option either. But you may remember way back when the details of the iMac's undocumented PCI-based "Perch" slot first emerged, we postulated that it might be possible for some enterprising graphics card manufacturer to create an iMac-only 3D accelerator. And when the details of the iMac's internal video port (into which the built-in display is connected, via a standard Mac monitor cable) came out, we were sure that such a thing was possible. Good news! According to MacCentral, Micro Conversions agreed with us, and they're about to release a gaming accelerator for the iMac. And it's not even a Voodoo card-- it's Voodoo 2, through and through, which offers staggering performance in the most resource-hungry 3D games today. Start saving up, kiddies, because in a month, $199 will get you an iMac Game Wizard.

Yes, installing an iMac Game Wizard will void your iMac's warranty, but it's a small price to pay to behead those Skaarj the way they were meant to be beheaded. By the way, those of you who recall us lambasting Micro Conversions for pricing their Voodoo 2 products right out of the market, there's some good news there, as well: effective immediately, the 12MB Game Wizard drops in price from $349 to $199. That's a much more realistic price point-- though PC versions of the Voodoo 2 cost less than half that. Still, we Mac users are still accustomed to paying more for less when it comes to certain peripherals. We suppose it's the karmic payback for paying less for more when we buy our Macs.

"Redmond Justice" rages on, as computer science expert David J. Farber takes the stand to defend his testimony that Microsoft bundled Windows and Internet Explorer not because it benefits the customer, but because it allowed them an unfair advantage when competing with Netscape. But for our money, the real high points of the show have been Bill Gates' numerous guest appearances, in which the producers spliced in videotaped footage of his August deposition. The answering of straightforward questions with vaguer ones, the giggle-inducing semantic debates over the meaning of simple English words, a discussion about the infinite subtleties of the phrase "pissing on"-- let others debate whether or not Gates' deposition is relevant; it's entertaining, by gum, and that's all that matters in our minds.

Unfortunately, Gates doesn't seem to think so; he is Not Amused. According to a New York Times article, he continues to go public with his accusations that the government is to blame for his "uncooperative" attitude during the taped deposition. During a recent news conference, he accused government lawyer David Boies of "badgering" him to give yes-or-no answers to questions he knew to be "ambiguous." A Microsoft legal consultant, Charles F. Rule (who, incidentally, used to head up the Justice Department's antitrust division) claims that the government is "trying to turn this into a P.R. spectacle."

Ironic much? After all, the Justice Department hasn't called a single news conference since the suit was filed back in May, while Microsoft generally issues a couple of news briefings a week, regularly makes public statements regarding the case on the steps of the courthouse, takes out full-page ads in national publications saying that the whole case is unjust since they're only trying to make software better for everyone, etc. Heck, they've even just posted a 21-page report called "A Case of Trial in Error: The Microsoft Antitrust Suit" to their web site. Now, who's trying to turn this case into a P.R. spectacle? Hey, whoever it is, keep it up-- it's the most fun we've had since Quark tried to buy Adobe.