So is everyone digging the new fall shows? It's a magical time of year, you know, what with all the new televisual neatness saturating the airwaves. (New episodes of "The Brak Show" alone are enough to put a spring in our step.) That said, occasionally new series crop up that we just don't buy even for a second, and we're not just talking about that insipid and monumentally incompetent remake of "Coupling." Here's the part where we all say "ha" a lot: believe it or not, "Redmond Justice" is back, this time in a warmed-over sequel spinoff with a premise so ludicrous it makes "Baywatch Nights" look like E freakin' R.

Yes, folks, it's "Redmond Justice 2: A Spine Grows In Washington," in which we're supposed to believe that the Justice Department has returned to its classic first-season roots. You remember the old DoJ, right? Filing the antitrust suit in the first place? Sending David "I Ate Three Companies Less Anticompetitive Than You For Breakfast" Boies to make Microsoft the laughingstock of the courtroom? Seeking a conviction, and getting it? Seeking a Microsoft breakup order, and getting that too? Yeah, you remember all that great stuff.

Of course, the show dragged on so long that once the White House changed hands, the DoJ suddenly went all jellyfish on us; despite having proved that Microsoft did in fact violate the Sherman Antitrust Act (a finding that stood upon appeal, we might add), the feds eventually opted for a settlement with Redmond that, as far as remedies go, ranked right up there with trying to put out a forest fire with a Super Soaker and a "Fire Is Bad" t-shirt. "Toothless" was a word that came up a lot when people discussed the terms of Microsoft's penance. We instead opted for "brainless," but hey, that's just us.

Well, get this: according to the Associated Press, Microsoft is all-too-predictably violating even the terms of that "toothless" settlement; reportedly when one clicks on Windows XP's "Shop for Music Online" button, the resulting web page pops up in Internet Explorer, even if the user had previously specified, say, Netscape as his or her default browser; that's apparently a no-no according to the settlement terms. That part we believe. The bit we find far-fetched is that the DoJ reportedly had enough backbone to have "formally complained to a federal judge" about the alleged infraction. Strains believability just a tad, wouldn't you say? Maybe they hid behind the 19 state attorneys general when they did it.

Assuming that it's true, the DoJ and the attorneys general have asked a judge to intervene "if the dispute isn't resolved by week's end," but given that the judge in question is the same Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who approved the slap-on-the-wrist settlement in the first place, the most we expect is some finger-wagging, a sly wink, and an indulgent smile. Even if you ignore the outlandish premise, the plot's a little thin; frankly, we don't expect this show to last through Thanksgiving.