Here's a seemingly off-topic quickie whose relevance will soon become apparent: faithful viewer Hat69 tipped us off to a Fortune article about still another in the endless line of Microsoft lawsuits. But this isn't just another piddly little Department of Justice antitrust suit, whose worst possible consequence is a slap on the wrist and no Nintendo for a week; this one has the potential to do some actual damage.

It seems that some tiny outfit called InterTrust Technologies slapped Microsoft with a lawsuit last year, alleging that the Redmond Beast had infringed several of its patents related to digital security technology in not one, not two, but nearly all of Microsoft's shipping products-- 85% of the entire product line, to be exact. Reportedly Microsoft suffered "utter defeat" at an important pretrial hearing in this case just last month, at which the judge ruled against the company on "33 of 33 disputed issues" and yelled at Microsoft's lawyers for "promising proof that never materialized." If Microsoft continues "getting trounced" this way, it may eventually be required to pay royalties on every copy of Windows XP sold, every Windows Media Player distributed, every Xbox shipped-- well, the dollars can really pile up.

There's no official word on what sort of damages and/or settlement InterTrust may be seeking, but people speculate that it's going to run into the billions. So, now we ask: does any of this sound familiar? Tiny company ("it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, thirty employees, and this lawsuit") you've never heard of sues multibillion-dollar big name for a sum with at least nine zeroes in it, based on patent infringement in one or more products essential to the big company's continued existence? That's right, folks: Imatec rides again! Anyone care to bet that one of InterTrust's thirty employees just happens to be Dr. Hanoch Shalit?

Nah, just kidding; whereas Imatec's suit against Apple was an obvious shakedown attempt with no merit whatsoever, for all we know this InterTrust thing is the real deal; the judge certainly seems to think so. Hey Microsoft-- we have the perfect defense for you! Simply put forth that you couldn't possibly have infringed any patents relating to security, because none of your products has any security! You should have an easy enough time proving that, what with all the news stories about viruses and potentially catastrophic exploits out there. Don't say we never did anything for you.