Holy cats-- just when you thought it was safe to go back to the multiplex, it's Worker Bee 2: This Time It's Still Not Personal! Longtime viewers will recall the fun we all had over four years ago when Apple announced that it had filed a lawsuit against... well, it didn't actually know who it had sued, but clearly it was someone very, very naughty. See, Apple was all in a tizzy over someone having swiped confidential images of its new dual-processor Power Macs and Pro Mouse before those products were released; said malfeasant had then posted the illicit images to "rumor-based forums" for all to see, thus spoiling Steve Jobs's Expo surprise. After filing suit, Apple was able to subpoena various ISPs for records that revealed the unknown poster "Worker Bee" to be one Juan Gutierrez, a temp employee who eventually settled with the company by basically promising never to do anything so naughty ever again.

But if he's not up to his old tricks, someone else is clearly trying to live up to the legend; faithful viewer andrü notes that, according to a Reuters article, Apple has once again filed suit against "an unidentified individual" who the company alleges "has recently misappropriated and disseminated through Web sites confidential information about an unreleased Apple product." We assume that, as before, Apple will use this "John Doe" suit to subpoena ISP records in order to ascertain the culprit's identity; once his or her cover's blown, Apple can amend the suit to name the actual miscreant and proceed to sue the living bejeezus out of him/her until he/she is reduced to a blubbering wreck who winds up settling the case by solemnly swearing on a stack of bibles never to blab trade secrets to the frothing Mac-fan masses again.

If you think it sounds overeactive and possibly just a wee bit absurd for Apple to be suing "some guy" without actually knowing who it is first, you may be right-- but we've been assured by legal experts (or, at least, by people who watch way too much Court TV) that this sort of thing happens all the time. And you're focusing on entirely the wrong aspect of the case, here; what's interesting isn't so much Apple's bizarre fixation with suing the unnamed, but rather the fact that the company wouldn't bother trying to put the litigational smackdown on a phantom unless some rumorological scrap publicly floating around out there in the ether is 100 percent dead-on accurate and reveals far too much about next month's Stevenote Surprise.

So the real question for Apple fans isn't so much "whodunnit?" as it is "whaddidwhodo?" Which pre-Stevenote rumor isn't just a muddle of baseless speculation, but really consists of actual stolen data about some fantabulous and unannounced Apple product? We expect it has to be something to do with either the flash-based iPod or the Apple-Motorola mobile phone, because most of the other rumors are simple speed-bumps to existing hardware, and not worth the lawsuit-- and the phone rumors are so recent, we doubt the suit was slapped together quickly enough to be a reaction to them. So now all you have to do is figure out which of the gazillion flashPod specs and/or images teeming out there represents the genuine article. How hard could it be? Here, we'll even start you off: it's probably not this one. Or this one. Or even this one.

Of course, if you really want to make yourself nuts, don't forget that this whole "sue the invisible guy" tactic might just be Apple's brilliant strategy to make us all think that something's out there, thus distracting us while it prepares the real juice for January. Which means we aren't going to know for sure until January 11th. Which is still over three weeks away. Which means our brains are almost certainly going to melt from the suspense. Cleanup on aisle 6!

So we were all geared up for Wildly Off-Topic Microsoft-Bashing Day this week with a tirade against Redmond's propensity for lobbing clusters of tightly-packed lawyers at anyone who registered a domain name with at least four letters in common with "microsoft.com"; you probably recall, for example, how it tried to sit on Canadian teen Mike Rowe, whose web site was, appropriately enough, MikeRoweSoft.com, and who eventually caved and handed over the domain name when Microsoft gave him an Xbox and a chance to meet Bill Gates. Anyway, we decided against the whole domain name rant for three reasons. First of all, Apple is embroiled in a similar (albeit slightly less questionable) struggle, having targeted the fella who owns iTunes.co.uk. Second, Microsoft's domain-grabbing bully rampage has been thwarted, albeit temporarily, by a court's sensible ruling that the company has no legal grounds to demand "mocosoft.com" from that domain's owner. And third, we'd much rather rake muck about how Microsoft might soon charge its customers for anti-spyware protection.

That's right, kiddies: faithful viewer Darth Mac tipped us off to a BBC News article which mentions that "almost every Windows PC is infested with spyware programs." Well, okay, it's more like 90 percent-- but each infested PC carries, on average, 28 separate spyware programs "that do everything from bombard users with adverts to steal login data." But don't worry, Microsoft's not just letting its customers twist in the wind! On the contrary, it just announced its acquisition of Giant Company Software, a leading developer of anti-spyware tools. And best of all, once the takeover is complete, Microsoft plans to "release a toolkit that strips machines of the irritating programs." (By "irritating programs," we assume the Beeb is referring to spyware and not Microsoft's own applications and operating systems, but you're certainly excused if you were momentarily and understandably confused.)

So when it hits the streets in about a month's time, how much will this glorious toolkit cost? Well, that's the best part: it'll be "initially free"-- which, as any Microsoft spokesperson can tell you, is the best kind of free! Specifically, it's the type of free which says, "here, try using your personal computer without spyware for a little while, and see how nice it feels. That way, when we jack up the price later, you'll gladly fork over whatever dough we demand, just so you can continue your spyware-free computing experience without ever once questioning why you're paying us for software to remove spyware that our own operating system's Swiss-cheese-like security (or lack thereof) let through in the first place." Why, paying Microsoft more money to correct Microsoft's own shameful lack of security in products you've already paid for is the next best thing to not using Microsoft products at all!

To be perfectly fair, Microsoft hasn't yet decided to charge for the toolkit later, saying only that it's "still working out pricing and licensing issues" and "has not ruled out charging people who want to keep this toolkit up to date." Of course, considering that most spyware infestations are largely its fault in the first place, Microsoft should be offering its long-suffering customers the kit for free, with free updates, plus a lifetime subscription to the BBQ Sauce of the Month Club as an act of contrition. But somehow we're guessing that Microsoft doing "the right thing" is-- like a computing experience that doesn't make one want to shoot oneself-- a little too much for Windows users to hope for.