Longtime AtAT fans will recall a time many years ago when we incorporated the courtroom drama of "Redmond Justice" into our show's plot on an almost daily basis, simply because there was so much juice dripping off the Microsoft antitrust case that it was impossible for us to ignore. Well, imagine our shock when we discovered today that our last "Redmond Justice" update took place over six months ago! We suppose that when we were on hiatus we just naturally assumed that the frickin' case would have died already, seeing as it's been stretching on since flagpole sitting was all the rage. But of course it didn't; it just keeps creeping along at its glacial pace and boring the pants off everybody who encounters it. ("Redmond Justice" really jumped the shark during the remedy phase, much to our chagrin. It really should have ended back in June of 2000 with the breakup ruling; even the appeals process was a little thin on plot.)

The latest development, if you can call it that, came to our attention via faithful viewer Eric Elfman, who noted an LA Times article describing the Justice Department's current investigation of "allegations that Microsoft Corp. continues to hide details about its flagship Windows operating system from competitors," which, if true, would be a no-no under the terms of the proposed settlement. Of course, since it's still just a proposed settlement because Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is taking her own sweet time about winding this marathon case to a close, the only real potential ramification might be the Judge refusing to green-light the settlement because Microsoft shows no inclination to comply.

At issue, here, is the settlement's requirement that Microsoft be required to license the Windows source code to third-party developers so they can eke the best performance from their applications and therefore compete fairly against Microsoft's applications. It seems that Sun and Red Hat (among others) are claiming that Microsoft isn't playing well with others. Apparently Microsoft won't share its code unless developers pay in advance before they can evaluate it-- which sort of wrecks the whole point of evaluating it in the first place.

Moreover, Microsoft's nondisclosure agreements are reportedly draconian and overly-restrictive. How so? We don't know. Because as Sun's general counsel explained, "Under the terms of the NDA, I can't talk to you about the terms of the NDA." Rrrrrriiight... This is one of those logical paradox brain teasers, isn't it? Like the kind that makes computers explode on Star Trek?

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that Microsoft's allegedly unrepentant behavior might lead to the proposed settlement needing amendments before the judge will approve it. And seeing as the thing was proposed last November, it's pretty clear that any changes to be made could be completed in, oh, say, six to eight months. All told, we're pretty happy that we've got "July 12th, 2009" in the "When Will 'Redmond Justice' End?" pool...