So here we are, back from our long weekend, all rested up and ready to rumble. And hopefully Apple's legal department clocked some serious rest and relaxation, because they've got a lot to tackle now that the holiday's behind them; in addition to their aggressive campaign to sue the pants off any PC manufacturers who dare to steal the iMac's design, now they've got to defend themselves from a "turnabout is fair play" sort of attack. Microware, a software company cranking out bits in the heartland of Iowa, has filed suit against Apple alleging trademark infringement. A CNET article has the gory details.

If you've been keeping up to speed, this lawsuit shouldn't come as a big shock; we told you last month that Apple Insider claimed Microware was itching to sue. Microware makes a real-time operating system for embedded systems which, unfortunately, just happens to be called OS-9. And while there isn't a whole lot of similarity between Microware's OS and the upcoming version of the Mac OS, Microware alleges that Apple's use of the name "Mac OS 9" can easily confuse people in the marketplace; after all, both products are operating systems, and they even both run on the PowerPC processor. Rumor has it that Microware gave Apple advance warning of the company's intention to sue unless a name change was in the cards, but Steve Jobs hyped "Mac OS 9" at Seybold last week, so it's off to court they go. Will Microware win a preliminary injunction forcing Apple to delay the release of its newest operating system while they change every "Mac OS 9" reference to "Mac OS 99"? Oooh, the suspense!

While we're never thrilled to see our favorite computer company distracted from their primary task of building cool gear, we at AtAT are just a little glad to see Apple on the other side of a trademark infringement lawsuit-- because it's a nice change of pace. It adds a little variety to Apple's Repeating Instant Lawsuit™ against the iMac copycats, the regularity of which was far too predictable. And these days, there's plenty of room for everyone to sue and be sued. Intellectual property law: it's not just for breakfast anymore!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner in AtAT's "Most Baffling Press Release" contest. While we've searched far and wide for the press release that most efficiently made us go "huh?", the honor goes to none other than Apple, for the September 3rd release titled, "Apple Reaches Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Action." How about a big round of applause for Apple, folks? It's not easy to confuse so many people with so few words.

In addition to the standard closing blurb about how Apple "ignited the personal computer revolution" yadda yadda yadda, this press release contained only three brief sentences, announcing the fact that the company has reached a settlement in the "shareholder derivative action known as Kostick vs. Crisp." As part of the settlement, Apple board of directors "will take certain corporate governance actions involving amendments to the Company's by-laws and the Company's policy concerning trading in Company securities." Never have so few words revealed so little, but fear not-- for more details (you mean there's more?), Apple states that interested parties need look no further than the September 3rd issue of Investor's Business Daily. You could also call Apple's legal department. Uh-huh.

Then again, there's always the option of relying on MacCentral to clue us all in. Apparently this "Kostick vs. Crisp" action dates back to the Dark Days of 1996, when everything was crumbling to dust and a share of Apple stock was cheaper than a Los Del Rio "Macarena" CD. This action, filed by the shareholders, alleges that Apple's then-current board was trying to sell the whole company off to Sun Microsystems at fire-sale prices-- after "disregarding previous acquisition attempts" that would have brought the shareholders a lot more dough. Yup, the problem wasn't that the board was trying to sell Apple; it was that they hadn't sold it to someone who would pay more. Those days seem long past, now that AAPL is trading at an all-time high, which might explain why Apple's press release was so opaque. It all just seems like a bad dream these days, doesn't it?

(Important retraction: As faithful viewer Y. Anrew Naka points out, the Apple Insider article referenced later in this scene does not say that Sawtooth G4s are not upgradeable, as we originally stated at broadcast time. Instead, it says that "Shark" G4s might have that limitation-- Shark being the successor to Sawtooth, which we're guessing will ship next spring. Our mistake. We've edited the following scene to include the correction. That said, we are hearing from several other sources that even Sawtooth might be non-upgradeable due to the ROM being on the processor card, but we won't know for sure until they ship. Isn't this fun?)

Remember the good ol' days of Mac cloning? Ahhh, that halcyon time when a handful of companies could slap together cheap boxes that ran circles around Apple-branded Macs while boasting a lower sticker price. And it's not too hard to see how they did it; they had significantly lower research and development expenses than Apple, who actually had to develop the operating system, too. The result? No, not increased market share for the Mac OS-- since cloners pretty much only sold to people who would otherwise have bought an Apple Mac. Instead we saw an already-hurting Apple watch its potential sales get cannibalized by its very own licensees. Apple just couldn't compete with, say, Power Computing on a price-performance basis. But whether or not you believe he saved Apple by doing it, Steve Jobs killed cloning and ended that weird chapter in Apple's history.

There's just that little thing about history repeating. See, back then, Apple saw cloning as an industry that stood in the way of Macintosh sales-- and eliminated it. But once again, Steve and friends seem to be locking their sights on the companies that represent the current biggest obstacle to Power Mac sales: the upgrade makers. For several years now, one of the cool things about owning a Mac is that it's relatively simple to buy a third-party processor upgrade card, pop it in, and suddenly you've got a Mac that may be even faster than anything Apple's got to offer. Unfortunately, each five-year-old 6100 with a G3 card or 466 MHz G3-upgraded 7500 represents little more to Apple now than a lost Power Mac sale. Think of it as after-market cloning, at least from Apple's perspective.

Apple's solution to this "problem," however, isn't all that pretty. You already know about the Blue Blocker scandal; Apple issued a firmware update for the blue and white G3s that apparently renders them incapable of using a G4 upgrade. While we still hope that Apple's planning on reversing that hardware lockout once a certain number of honest-to-goodness Power Mac G4s get sold, the next step in the company's campaign against upgrades is perhaps less egregiously slimy, though far more insidious-- and effective. You know how the iMacs aren't processor-upgradeable? That's because the Mac hardware ROM is right on the processor card-- and only Apple can make the ROMs. Well, guess what? Next year's high-end Power Mac G4s will apparently be the same way, according to Apple Insider. That would mean that unless the upgrade companies get Apple's permission, they won't be able to create upgrade cards for the "Shark" Power Mac G4. (We're hoping "Yosemite" and "Sawtooth" G4s will be upgradeable, unless Apple issues another firmware "fix.") Is anyone else getting one of those "uh-oh" feelings?