Sometimes it seem like there are so many lawsuits floating around in the high-tech world, we honestly wonder how anyone actually gets any work done. And yet, somehow it all comes together: Sun keeps cranking out Java, Intel manages to keep those big ol' chips rolling off the assembly lines, and Microsoft churns out software package after software package. You'd think with all the time, money, and energy thrown into pursuing legal action and defending against others' lawsuits would affect the quality of the products. Hmmm... Still no Intel Merced, and yet another power-sucking iteration of the same old Pentium architecture... Windows 2000 (née NT) delayed yet again... Maybe we're onto something. You think?

That said, we've got to wonder how much further along Apple might be today if they weren't embroiled in their own set of legal issues. Would we already be using Mac OS X, for example? Would the big seller over the last holiday season have been the WebMate? Would we be able to buy Mood iMacs at the local supermarket? While it's fun to speculate, the fact of the matter is, Apple's on both sides of plenty of lawsuits to keep them busy. The biggie is that billion-dollar Imatec suit, but there are others, as well. For instance, Apple watchers who have been paying attention for a couple of years probably remember Exponential; they were the company that was working on their own variation of the PowerPC processor, using a technology which they claimed would yield much faster chips than IBM and Motorola were producing. Apple was Exponential's biggest investor, but when it became clear that Exponential's processors were only marginally faster than "traditional" PowerPC's, Apple pulled their funding and Exponential shut their doors.

Exponential sued Apple, of course, for some $500 million, and as far as we know that case is ongoing. But Apple also sued Exponential for auctioning off its chip patents to the highest bidder, which turned out to be S3, another chip manufacturer. S3 reportedly bought the 45 patents for $10 million, but Apple seeks to block the final sale with its lawsuit. So far it seems like Apple's not making a lot of headway; according to a Newsbytes article, the Delaware Chancery Court just dismissed a bunch of Apple's charges in the case, and rejected their requests that Exponential cancel its contracts with three of its bigwigs. On the plus side, the dispute over the patent sale itself still stands, and will be decided via a formal trial. Granted, it's a lot more mundane than, say, "Redmond Justice," but it keeps Apple's lawyers busy...

Speaking of products from Apple that we might otherwise have seen by now (hey, we sort of were!), what about Rhapsody? Apple's next-generation (and NeXT-generation) operating system has seen so many strategy changes it's well-nigh unrecognizable now; if we could go back in time and tell a Mac developer in, say, May of 1997 about Apple's current Mac OS X plans, he'd never believe it, though we bet he'd love the idea. As for Rhapsody itself, though, that's now known as Mac OS X Server, and it consists of a Macified NeXT/UNIX-based operating system, plus Webobjects and the Apache web server, all for $995. At that price point, it's definitely not the average user's desktop operating system (nor should it be-- it's not nearly as friendly as the Mac OS, from what we've seen), but it's a kick-ass system to use for central file- or web-serving.

Or, at least it would be, if it were actually available. It seems like we've been waiting for Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server forever; every time Apple's deadline was about to be missed, suddenly the "strategy" would change, the definition of Rhapsody would be tweaked, and a new date would be set. The good news, though, is that after months and months of waiting, it seems like Mac OS X Server is truly just around the corner. Mac OS Rumors claims that the operating system has just gone "golden master," meaning that the code has been frozen and the software has been sent to the manufacturing plants. Right now, somewhere CD after CD of Mac OS X Server is being pressed, and the software should be available to its admittedly somewhat limited market by the middle of this month. On top of that, blue and white G3 servers preloaded with Mac OS X Server will reportedly be available at the Apple Store within a couple of weeks.

If this is true, it's the end of one era and the beginning of another. While we at AtAT have very little use for Mac OS X Server ourselves (AtAT is humming along just fine with Mac OS 8.5.1, thank you very much), there must be plenty of organizations out there who could use a server that accepts thousands of concurrent users, allows network booting of Mac clients, can stream QuickTime video in real time, and includes an incredibly rich and powerful framework for the development of complex web-based applications. We're interested to see who jumps on the technology first, and how it holds up. (If anyone wants to send us a free copy, sure, we'll take a look. ;-)

Is it just us, or does this sound vaguely familiar to you, too? According to a CNET article, certain sections of Microsoft's website were apparently off-limits to surfers trying to connect using Netscape Navigator or Communicator. Netscape surfers trying to sign up for Microsoft's "Year 2000 Resource Center" CD were getting nasty HTTP errors. The problem has apparently since been fixed; when we last tried it ourselves, it functioned fine in Navigator 4.06-- although the page title for the Y2K CD sign-up form inexplicably read "Career Search." (There's that classic Microsoft attention to detail...)

This Netscape lockout may well be completely accidental and lacking any and all malicious intent, but we still find it "noteworthy." For one thing, if it is just a bug in Microsoft's web site, that would imply that they aren't testing their site for use with Netscape browsers-- which would be odd, given that Microsoft claims that Netscape's browser market share isn't all that far off from Internet Explorer's. Granted, we've long suspected that Microsoft's product testing must be a little on the, shall we say, "lax" side, but ignoring half of your expected audience seems excessive, even for a company from whom people expect bug-ridden software.

Incidentally, MacInTouch describes a reader's similar sort of experience when trying to access other areas of Microsoft's site with a Netscape browser; he was locked out because his browser "did not accept cookies," which was false. That reminds us of a semi-related phenomenon that popped up a couple of years ago, where people found that Internet Explorer simply refused to download Netscape Navigator. Maybe we're just overdosing on conspiracy paranoia following the first part of "Total Disclosure" on The X-Files, but hey, there are just a few too many "coincidences" here for us to swallow.