Last year, Steve Jobs reportedly sent undercover Apple reps into the field to examine first-hand the sorry state of Macs in the retail space. A few months ago, Apple announced it was pulling its products out of all national retail chains except for CompUSA. Only a few weeks ago, Apple suddenly "de-authorized" several of its dealers and service reps, in a continuing attempt to clean house. And now, apparently Apple thinks it's time to play hardball; today they announced that they have filed suit against four ex-Apple Service Providers who have allegedly defrauded Apple out of some $600,000 worth of equipment and service fees. See Apple's press release for (marginally) more details.

Apple claims that these four companies collected payment for repairs they never actually made, and also received replacement parts under false pretenses, which they presumably then sold for even more cash. Slimy, hmmm? How'd you like to take your PowerBook G3 in for warranty repair and get it back with a half-assed patch job under the hood? Going to a computer service center carries a lot of the same risks as going to an auto mechanic; go to a reputable one, or you could end up with a rebuilt alternator or a reconditioned screen, when you might pay for (or have the right to) brand new equipment. This is Apple's attempt to help ensure that its authorized service providers are playing by the rules.

This lawsuit sends a clear message to would-be malfeasants that Apple is no longer going to let itself be defrauded by service centers who just want to make a quick buck-- heck, they can't afford to anymore. In the grand scheme of Apple's finances, $600 grand may not be very much, but if the practice persists, it adds up to lower profits for Apple and poorer service for Apple customers. We're glad to see Apple make an example of those who would take such advantage of them-- and, by extension, us.

Microsoft may have won the first round of "Redmond Justice" last week, when a three-judge panel struck down the preliminary injunction preventing them from forcing PC manufacturers to preload Internet Explorer on every Windows 95 system shipped. However, the judges' decision was based in part on a standard antitrust law treatise, and one of the authors of that treatise says the court made a mistake. There's more in the Boston Globe.

Einer Elhauge, the Harvard Law School professor who co-authored the treatise, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times stating his opinion that the Appeals Court "got wrong the interpretation of the legal standard." (We're told that it's pretty rare for lawyers to publicly state a specific judge's interpretation is incorrect, since there's always the chance of having to argue before that judge in the future. We assume that means that Einer feels pretty strongly about this.) Under Einer's definition, Windows 95 and Internet Exporer are sold separately and any shmoe can put them together to get the same thing that Microsoft was forcing PC manufacturers to sell. Thus, Windows and IE are separate products and Microsoft is in violation of its 1995 consent decree for "tying" the sale of the two products together. Einer feels that the Appeals Court misread his analysis and came to the exact opposite conclusion that they should have. (Whoops!)

There's no telling whether or not Einer's publicly-stated opinion could affect the outcome of "Redmond Justice II: The State Bites Back," starring the Justice Department in a returning role and introducing twenty states' attorneys general as the ornery but lovable sidekicks. But once that court date rolls around in September, perhaps the judge will remember this little incident. Stay tuned to find out.

Apple may have lost a little ground in its struggle to maintain its hold on the education market, but it looks like things may be turning around. In two separate and unrelated stories on MacCentral, we see evidence that Apple has a chance to stay on top in higher education.

First, Dartmouth has announced which computer it officially recommends to this fall's incoming class of 2003. Guess what? It's the iMac. And why not? It'll cost students only $1264 complete, it's fast fast fast, it's got a tiny footprint ideal for a dorm room, and it's wired to hook straight into the campus network. And if Apple manages to ship the things by August 19th as expected, they'll just barely beat the deadline for the back-to-school rush. In fact, we bet that the iMac will be a relatively popular choice among students even at schools who don't recommend it as the "blessed" system.

And secondly, if you were all worked up about how the California State University System was not renewing its Mac OS license, it appears that you can relax now; that decision has been reversed, following uproar among the campuses in the system. See? Good news does strike every once in a while. We could get used to this...