Apple has finally publicly addressed the (snort) billion-dollar lawsuit filed against them a couple of months ago by some medical imaging company called Imatec. Faithful AtAT viewers will recall that Imatec is claiming that Apple's ColorSync software, poised to because a cross-platform standard, violates Imatec patents related to color calibration of computer equipment. In a press release, Apple reveals that not only are they prepared to "vigorously defend" themselves in court, but they're fighting back with a counterclaim intended to have Imatec's patents declared invalid.

Our legal department tells us that there are two basic avenues to take when defending oneself in a patent infringement case-- one can either deny that the patents were ever violated at all, or show that the patents should never have been granted to the plaintiff in the first place and are therefore invalid. Apple's taking the latter course, claiming that Rudolf Hell GmbH developed color calibration systems for computer equipment back in 1985, long before Imatec's patents were filed. Therefore, they claim, Imatec's patents never should have been approved.

If what Apple claims is true, then it sounds like Imatec stands a good chance not only of losing the billion-dollar claim, but also of losing the patents upon which they've based their case. Considering that they apparently don't have much more than that to lose, we wonder if they'll even push the case into court. Sounds like just another attempt to squeeze some cash out of a big company by hoping for an out-of-court settlement, and now that Apple's shown that that's not going to happen, well...

And in other legal news, are you concerned about the kid gloves the Department of Justice seems fond of wearing as it pursues its antitrust movements against Microsoft? Yeah, well, so are eleven states, whose attorneys general are preparing for a possible separate attack on the software behemoth, intended to take bolder steps than this "you can't force people to include IE with your OS" goofiness. A CNET article contains more on this potentially gritty spin-off of "Redmond Justice."

The states reported to be preparing for action are (please hold your applause until the end): California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. (An anonymous AtAT source reports that Wisconsin's inclusion was prompted by rumors of Microsoft Cheese 99®, due to hit shelves next spring.) Their investigation is reportedly drawing to a close, and they are getting ready for court. While no definite time slot has been set, watch for their prime-time debut sometime before mid-May, as they intend to get on the air before Microsoft ships Windows 98, "the next big thing."

We fully expect this state-driven show to have sharper teeth than "Redmond Justice," which one CNET source describes as an attempt to "gum Microsoft to death." So whereas "Redmond Justice" turned out to be about as gritty and hard-hitting as "She's the Sheriff" starring Suzanne Somers, this new, as-yet-unnamed show may turn out a little more like "NYPD Blue" or "Homicide." And after all, isn't that what entertainment is all about-- choices?

And in other Microsoft news (are these the cleanest segues you've ever seen, or what?), there's been a little doubt cast on the veracity of Microsoft's new print ads. We're talking about the new campaign Microsoft is planning to try and gain the support of the American public in its continuing antitrust struggles. The focus is, of course, not on the right to crush your competition via currently illegal means, but rather on the "right to innovate." The interesting thing is, if the La Times (via ABC News) is to be believed, these print ads contain "opinion pieces and letters to the editor" that were generated entirely by Microsoft's PR department, but they're passed off as pieces written by outside supporters of the company.

You've undoubtedly seen sleazy ad campaigns with a similar strategy in the past-- we're thinking of the print ads that are laid out to look like a real article in the magazine or newspaper in which they appear, and are written in an "articly" style, spouting the virtues of the product being sold as if an impartial third-party were writing an unbiased review. (Of course, there's always the teeny-weeny print at the bottom of the page which states that the piece is a "paid commercial advertisement.") But if Microsoft was really planning a similar strategy, what does that say about their current estimation of public opinion? Seems like a desperate move. Furthermore, look at the list of states in which this campaign was supposed to be run-- Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin-- and compare it to the list of states preparing antitrust action against Microsoft. Notice any overlap? Don't that just put the "dink" in "co-inky-dink?"

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft denies the claims made by the LA Times. But we may never know, given that Microsoft would never be stupid enough to continue with such a strategy after this news got out-- a Microsoft spokesman states that "the idea of paid faux testimonials won't happen." Pity-- it'd be interesting to see what Microsoft considers to be believable human testimonials. Especially when we've seen what they consider to be a believable user interface...