Observant drama fiends looking for other entertainment to distract themselves from Cupertino's ongoing troubles were rewarded by a special guest appearance on "Redmond Justice" yesterday-- by none other than Apple Computer itself. When Microsoft filed its brief outlining the various and sundry reasons why it shouldn't be axed down the middle, the company evidently felt that this was the perfect time to raise a bunch of issues that probably should have been argued at an earlier time. (Like, say, maybe at the trial?) In any case, though, MacCentral reports that the Redmond crew is finally claiming that it doesn't wield monopoly power because Apple is a "viable competitor." Viable? High praise from Bill's crew, indeed!

See, according to Microsoft, the whole thing's just a big misunderstanding stemming from an incorrect market definition. If the operating system market is "properly defined" to include Apple, then there's no Windows monopoly. Presumably the argument is that despite Windows holding over 90% of the personal computer installed base, the Mac OS could just waltz in at any time and start stealing operating system share like gangbusters. What's wrong with this picture? If Microsoft's lawyers are arguing that Apple threatens Windows's operating system share right now, they might want to ask Gateway, Dell, Compaq, and every other Wintel manufacturer why they don't offer their customers the option of buying Pentium systems preloaded with the Mac OS instead of Windows. (Hint: that whole Mac OS-on-Intel thing is still just a rumor, people.)

In fact, we admit to being rather flummoxed by Microsoft's latest claim. At least when Bill's lawyers state that Linux developers are Microsoft's competitors, we can see that both parties produce operating systems for the same hardware, and the customer can choose one or the other. But Apple sells Macs, and operating systems that run on Macs. Microsoft doesn't sell computers at all, and (leaving aside PocketPC for a second) its operating systems run on x86-compatible PCs. Where, exactly, is the overlap that would "properly define" the market and make Apple a viable competitor? Darwin? Puh-leeze.

Still, it's nice to get the recognition. The next time your PC-using friends chide you for your computing platform choice, you can tell them that Microsoft itself said that Apple is a viable competitor. Heck, it's only a matter of time before Apple starts selling T-shirts to that effect.