As the Lindows saga starts to build momentum, it appears that Be - the creator of BeOS - is about to have its day in court with Microsoft.

It blames the software giant's monopolistic practices for its own failure and, presumably, wants some form of recompense. To add to these 'OS Wars', there are also accusations flying that Microsoft has not stood by the letter of its earlier anti-trust settlement. It seems that, right now, Microsoft can do nothing right.

The Lindows case is the most intriguing because this does appear to be a rather fatuous situation where Microsoft is having to protect the word 'Windows' against its similar-sounding opponent. Lindows founder, Michael Robertson, does not appear to disagree with the fundamental complaint from Microsoft but, instead is objecting on the grounds that the word 'Windows' has existed for many years and can not be seen to be the property of Microsoft.

At the same time, Robertson points out that there have been many products using the W-word that Microsoft has not challenged. The reality of this is that, in the software world, most products that refer to Windows in their names are enhancing Microsoft's platform rather than competing against it. The Lindows product deserves to have its go at the market. It is a WINE project that could succeed. However, it is hard to see how it can win this case. Why not just change the name sooner rather than later and use the publicity to get the new name known? 'LindOS' would seem a viable compromise.

Be's lawsuit builds on Microsoft's earlier monopoly convictions. Its claim is that the proven monopolistic activity destroyed the Be business. BeOS was (is) an alternative operating environment, similar to Lindows, that can reside alongside the Microsoft environment. Be attempted to convince a number of PC manufacturers, including Compaq and Hitachi, to put both operating systems on their products and let the users choose. The claim is that Microsoft's grip on these suppliers made it impossible to achieve this although Hitachi did send out some systems with BeOS loaded but difficult to execute. Be eventually sold the technology to Palm at a very low price and is reputedly dissolving its business.

In order to succeed, both of these cases will need to rely on a certain amount of anti-Microsoft sympathy from the judges. Fortunately for them, it appears that Microsoft is doing little to improve the general view of its activities. The remaining states, as yet unsatisfied by the anti-trust resolution, are now implying that Microsoft is inflicting onerous licensing deals on those manufacturers that buy its software.

These states want Windows stripped down to its component parts and sold separately so that users have greater choice. This view is a rather unfortunate side-issue caused by Microsoft's new, more expensive, licensing strategy. Microsoft is claiming that the remaining states are distorting the facts to make their case. This time, Microsoft is probably correct.