We at AtAT have been stating for a long time that Apple should capitalize upon the relative insignificance of the Y2K bug in Macintosh systems by starting a heavy-hitting ad blitz that harps on the subject. Yes, of course Macs are susceptible to Y2K problems depending on what software they run, but it's a much-reduced concern, and the system itself won't blink an eye when 2000 comes around. Anyway, right at the end of a MacWEEK article about all kinds of upcoming Apple stuff, Apple's Mac OS product manager Peter Lowe reveals that Apple will indeed be "pushing hard" to market the Mac as a Y2K-proof computer in 1999. (Thankfully, Apple's testing that claim strenuously before they start the ads and open themselves up for a very embarrassing New Year's Day, 2000.)

Mac OS Rumors claims to have some more details on the Y2K advertising blitz (though the information is thrown in with so many marginally believable details about QuickTime 5 and PC-compatible "Red Box" technology that we're more than a little wary of the integrity of the source). Apparently the new TV commercials will start to air on February 2nd, and Rumors even has a transcript of one of the ads, which features the "president of a large corporation" fielding a call from a representative of "Data Protection Systems" who is hawking Y2K preparation services; the president calmly states that he doesn't have to worry because he has a Macintosh. Mmm, too simple and lacks punch. We've received a ton of better Y2K ad suggestions from AtAT viewers over the course of the past year, so we hope that the example over at Rumors isn't genuine. Still, we welcome the advent of Y2K-centric Mac ads, even though they should have started a long time ago.

So how extensive will the system failures be once the calendar flips over to 2000? We won't know until we get there, but here's our personal prediction: in PC-based companies all over the world, the only departments left standing will be the graphics folks and their Macs, who will rise to take over the companies and build a new Golden Era of peace and prosperity. Blessed are the Graphics Geeks, for they shall inherit the payroll department...

We all know about Imatec's $1.1 billion lawsuit against Apple for allegedly infringing upon Imatec patents in the ColorSync color management technology. Since it was first announced, we've been hard-pressed to name another high-tech suit with such a high price tag-- but that's all just changed. Enter Goldtouch Technologies, Inc., a maker of ergonomic input devices who has just sued Microsoft for $1 billion in damages, alleging "patent infringement, fraud, and theft of trade secrets." Read all about it in PC Week Online.

Goldtouch's suit alleges some pretty nasty behavior on Microsoft's part. According to the suit, Microsoft buddied up to Goldtouch and stated that they were interested in licensing some technology to use in a new Microsoft mouse. A meeting was scheduled between the two companies, at which Microsoft representatives asked "detailed questions" about Goldtouch's ergonomic designs and technologies, which Goldtouch answered with the belief that a licensing deal was imminent. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft told Goldtouch that they were no longer interested-- and a year later, the Microsoft Intellimouse Pro hit the market. According to Goldtouch, Microsoft used the information gathered at the meeting to design its new mouse. It was a slimy move, if it indeed happened that way-- Imatec's suit against Apple doesn't allege nearly the same degree of icky behavior, even though it asks for more money. (Both suits claim full intent to ignore the patents that were supposedly violated, and are asking for treble damages. That's over $6 billion, all told.)

So the billion-dollar-question is this: Is it a good sign or a bad sign that Apple faces lawsuits of similar size and type as ones filed against the monolithic Microsoft? On the one hand, it's a big distraction for Apple during this time of rebuilding, but on the other, does this officially put them back in the big leagues? If it does, it's a heck of a way to get there...

Just when "Redmond Justice" seemed to have slipped into a lull, things got hopping again during Microsoft's cross-examination of government witness Edward Felten. If you've been tuning in regularly, you know that Felten is the Princeton University professor of computer science who has testified that Microsoft's integration of the Internet Explorer web browser into the Windows operating system was not done because of any planned design, but rather to force Windows customers to use IE. If the judge's reactions during the courtroom proceedings are the means by which we measure which side wins, this round seems to go squarely to the government. A Reuters story has more.

Felten, you see, came up with a program that he claims can remove IE from Windows 98; it basically deletes all of the icons and executable launch scripts from the user interface, and edits the Windows Registry so that IE isn't launched automatically when an HTML file is opened, etc. When a Microsoft attorney told Felten that his software didn't work as stated, Felten's response was that it worked just fine-- until December 4th. Apparently Microsoft modified Windows 98 at some point prior to that date in such a way as to make Felten's software incompatible. This is where the judge pricked up his ears, as he interjected to ask Felten, "Are you telling me that as part of discovery you provided this code in September, whereupon there appears to have been product changes by Microsoft?" Felten replied with a simple "yes." Hmmm, that looks just a wee bit suspicious-- and the judge certainly seems to think so, too.

That little piece of evidence may have colored Jackson's behavior later in the proceedings, when he once again grew impatient with Microsoft's line of questioning and ordered lawyer Dave Heiner to stop "playing word games." Heiner quickly finished up his cross-examination after the judge's statement that "If you continue to pursue this line of questioning it simply appears to be inviting him to make a careless mistake." That was probably a smart move on Microsoft's part; if the judge were as miffed at us as he obviously is at them, we'd want to cut our losses and move on, too. And so ends one more battle in the ongoing war.