Such an instance befell Bloomberg news today. The organization mistakenly published a 12-page obituary memorializing Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

Unfortunately for Bloomberg, and fortunately for Apple fanboys and fangirls worldwide, St. Steve is, in fact, alive and well. The rest of the tech world was quick to pick up the story and partake in a nice bit of schadenfreude at Bloomberg's expense.

A nice bit of news for the time of year referred to as the "silly season," but you can't really single Bloomberg out for this. While it was a major mistake, it was one that many in the tech press world could have made.

For those outside of the world of journalism, a bit of an explanation is necessary. Obituaries aren't the sort of thing that are written up spontaneously. Organizations routinely assign reporters to update the life story of important newsmakers in the event that someone passes away suddenly. A well-maintained obituary allows a news organization to get up a better story much faster than one that has to scramble to recount a celebrity's life on a tight deadline.

Given Steve's recent bout with cancer and the gaunt appearance that resulted from its aftereffects, it's no wonder Bloomberg would want to update his obituary.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, a journalistic blunder can lead to a Wall Street meltdown. Can you imagine what would have happened if this news had been picked up elsewhere and investors dumped Apple Stock en masse? Billions of dollars in market losses could have been pinned on a simple screw up with the Bloomberg story publishing tool...

The thinking is that Apple is using its position in the OS market to gain an unfair competitive advantage in the hardware market.

The argument has worked before. It was the central point for the DOJ and EU nailing Microsoft in the 90's after the company decided to swing the Windows market share around in order to push its products in other areas.

But probably not in this case. Apple's share of the OS market is still a small fraction of Windows', and Psystar will have a tough time arguing that OS X is its own market, as nearly all Mac apps have PC counterparts. Apple also has the argument that OS X and the Mac are inseparable and that you can't really have one without the other.

Or perhaps they'll just settle this whole thing before it even gets to trial. As much as we'd all love a good courtroom soap opera, the smart money seems to be that Psystar will pack it up, settle with Apple and either shutter its doors or try to carry on as another middling PC system builder.

Yes, for the low, low price of just $50,000 you can buy Open Tech, the super-shady, Mac not-quite-clone vendor that never actually shipped anything.

You may remember Open Tech, which promised to sell computers that used PC hardware, ran PC software, but were also capable of being hacked to run MacOS (in other words, a regular PC.)

It seems that the nontreprenours behind Open Tech just weren't cut out for the business of not making PCs and they're now looking to unload the company to the tune of fifty grand.

Among the assets you would acquire: the company web site (currently hosted on freewebs), its model "blueprints", press contacts and two PCs.

A more cynical person would suggest that they never really planned to do anything other than hype their non-company and sell it for a quick buck, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they just want to drop the legal liability on some unsuspecting sap.

A nice bonus: buy now and you can possibly earn a spot in history as the first ever corporate acquisition completed via PayPal.

First, it was the fire that broke out on the company's Cupertino campus, damaging an R&D building and causing a grand total of $2 million in damages.

Apple could see a bigger hit, however, from a much smaller burn.

Authorities in Japan are warning users after 3 fires were connected to iPod nano players. Apple admitted that the problem is due to a faulty battery in a small number of the first-generation nano sold between september of 2005 and December of 2006.

Granted, it's really a tiny risk. Less than .001 percent of all first gen nanos are even affected by the issue. Still, I'm guessing anyone who owns a first-gen nano will be hesitant to put it in their front pocket any time soon....

Without a doubt, no moment was more crucial for Apple in the 90's than the 1997 MacWorld Boston keynote. Fortunately, someone was kind enough to archive the entire presentation via YouTube.

How different this presentation was from the MacWorld keynotes of today: First off, Apple actually allowed the event's sponsor, Macworld magazine, to acknowledge its own role in the event. Aside from that, someone actually got up on the stage and talked before Steve. Also note the wardrobe, Steve trades in the turtleneck for an oh-so-90210 sweater vest t-shirt combo. Most shockingly of all, people actually have the gall to boo Steve Jobs. Crazy times indeed.

Reports are surfacing that a new round of phishing spam is being sent out disguised as an official e-mail from Apple. The e-mail tells the user of a supposedly failed MobileMe payment that needs to be cleared up. The user then goes to the supposed payment site, enters their credit card details, and ownage ensues.

I'm sure most everyone knows the best practices for avoiding phishing scams, but if not, check out this handy guide and be sure your lesser informed Mac-using friends and family know about this scam as well.

Such is the case for Apple uber-pundit Gene Munster. The Piper Jaffray analyst now believes that the company will soon announce... an event to announce something new.

Munster definitely has history on his side. late August/early September has brought special events from Apple three years in a row now. Previous end-of-summer announcenments have included the iTunes movie store, the iPod Nano, and the AppleTV.

Among the products Munster expects, retooled iPod shuffles a new MacBook. Don't however, hold your breath on a touchscreen notebook/tablet, he doesn't see that happening at least for a year.

As was expected, Apple isn't saying anything about it, at least not through the official channels. The experts are baffled as to what exactly the list does and how it could be used. Even Jonathan Zdziarsky, the guy who discovered the flaw notes that users should hold off on the Orwell references until it can be figured out what, if anything, the file does.

Mac fanblog Daring Fireball is reporting that the list just restricts access to the iphone's tracking components.

The blog cites a source within the company as saying that the list will only block the app from using the Core Location API. The reason, said the source, was privacy concerns, not some broad attempt by Apple to hijack your iPhone and delete your copy of NetShare.

This started the whole cycle anew and lead just about everyone to once again criticize Apple for its handling of the security flaw. Well, everyone except the guy who discovered the flaw.

Last week, Dan Kaminsky asked the rest of the security community to call off the dogs on Apple, insisting that the company did just fine with its handling. Kaminsky's exact words:
There are scenarios in which the clients are vulnerable, but it's servers we need to worry about right now, and Apple did right by fixing their server.

The ex-network engineer is claiming that the company asked him and other employees to work beyond the standard 40 hour work week without properly compensating them for the overtime. The man also claims that he and other network engineers were required to be on call for stretches of up to seven days at a time.

To top it all off, he says that Apple was aware of this and skirted labor laws by creating meaningless titles for employees which allowed the company to "promote" them to positions that required more hours and no pay increase.

Now, Apple employees are known even within the workaholic tech world for being very tied to their jobs. Perhaps it's a labor of love, perhaps it's fear of Steve Jobs seeing you in the parking lot before 7 PM and firing you in front of everyone, perhaps it's a small mixture of both. But in this case, it doesn't look like Apple is doing anything extraordinary.

Not to be too cynical here, but isn't this the description of just about every IT job in existence? I don't know of too many network engineers that don't spend one or two weekends a month on call (or even in the office, for that matter.)

If this case goes in favor of the plaintiff, it sounds like a LOT of companies are going to have to change their ways. Sounds like Apple was just par for the course here.

The Daily Mail claims that the new Apple mobile would arrive before Christmas, meaning it will hit the shelves about the same time that iPhone 3G you ordered last week arrives.

The report sites the usual "industry source" as saying that the nano would "be the big one."

I'm not even going to point out that such a release would undermine sales of the iPhone 3G and fly completely in the face of Apple's normal release schedule, because this report descends into failure long before that.

The 'industry source' reports that the device will have 'a candy bar shape similar to the iPod nano.' I'm not I'd trust any industry insider that doesn't know the iPod Nano hasn't had the 'candy bar' design for about a year now.

There's also the 'clickwheel' on the back of the device and a price tag of 150 pounds (nevermind that the 16GB 3G costs only 159 pounds with a contract.)

Not sure where these rumors are coming from lately, but I have one good theory: One night a week, Apple execs gather in an office, crack open a bottle of Patron, and see who can get the most outrageous lie picked up by the media.

The Mac knockoff specialists have hired law firm Carr & Ferrell LLP to represent them. This same law firm was in the corner of music player company Burst.com a couple years ago. In that case, Apple ended up shelling out some $10 million in settlement/licensing fees for software in iTunes and the iPod.

This time, the IP lawyers will be on the defensive, and they'll face the formidable task of proving that Psystar didn't step all over the OS X EULA when it shipped Mac clones with the operating system pre-installed.

According to a company e-mail swiped by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Ballmer pointed to Apple as a model for how the company should design its products. Apparently, nobody bothered to tell him that this is what Microsoft has been doing for the last 25 years or so...

Jokes aside, Ballmer's assessment is pretty right on:
In the competition between PCs and Macs, we outsell Apple 30-to-1. But there is no doubt that Apple is thriving. Why? Because they are good at providing an experience that is narrow but complete, while our commitment to choice often comes with some compromises to the end-to-end experience. Today, we're changing the way we work with hardware vendors to ensure that we can provide complete experiences with absolutely no compromises. We'll do the same with phones--providing choice as we work to create great end-to-end experiences.

Ballmer hits this one on the nose. Apple's greatest strength over the last ten years has been its ability to tailor the hardware and software to each other. Unfortunately, he also drops the ball by suggesting Microsoft can do the same.

Microsoft's problem is that it doesn't develop for one machine. Apple designs each version of the MacOS for maybe a dozen different supported Macintsoh models, all of which the company makes. When Apple wants to put a new feature in OS X, the company codes it in, ads drivers for the most recent MacBook/iMac/MacPro models, and presto.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has to craft each version of Windows for countless hardware vendors, devices, and industries. What made Windows the best-selling piece of software on the planet is now what hamstrings the company when it comes to improving it. Any radical new features require the cooperation of hundreds of other companies.

As is being shown by Vista, Windows is stuck under the massive weight of its own success. Making changes to OS X is like turning a speed boat. For Windows, it's more like turning an aircraft carrier.

The firm, which refuses to disclose its location, and its "legal team," one of whom refuses to give his full name when speaking to the press, are claiming to sell computers that can run OS X.

Unlike lawsuit magnet Psystar, however, these guys won't actually sell you a computer with OS X preinstalled, or pre-bundled. You have to install it yourself.

The machines are made up of PC hardware, come pre-installed with a PC operating system, but you have the option of installing OS X if you yourself want to violate Apple's EULA. Anyone familiar with the Hackintosh project knows exactly where I'm going with this.

You can do this exact same thing with pretty much any new PC. Every PC vendor in the world is unknowingly peddling the same type of "Mac clones" as Open Tech, only they don't advertise it.

To recap, these guys want you to send hundreds or even thousands of dollars to a company in parts unknown that may or may not exist, for a computer that may or may not exist (their "product" pages simply show photos of empty cases) when you can spend less to get essentially the same thing from your local computer store or simply build it yourself.

If it's not a complete scam, it's a pretty shady operation, and a bad deal without a doubt.

For those of you too young to remember, the Newton was Apple's ill-fated early 90's attempt at a PDA. It had no buttons,featured a touch-screen (stylus) interface and sported handwriting recognition. It was a device ahead of its time and would have revolutionized the industry, had it not been for one small flaw.

It totally sucked.

The notoriously bad handwriting recognition on the Newton made the device more or less inoperable to most people and put it at number one on most people's list of Apple flops (though I'd personally bestow that honor on the 20th anniversary Mac.)

Anyways, yet another bout of rumors has a distant descendant of the Newton on the way from Apple. According to the super-secret source for MacDailyNews, the device is sort of like a full-screen iPhone (or maybe half a MacBook Air?) with tactile feedback and a Superdrive (though I find that one hard to buy, as Apple is moving to get rid of optical media devices in its portables.) Apple Insider has been claiming something like this is in the pipeline for a while now as well.

Certainly this device would be better than the Newton, build would it also have better luck in the marketplace? Tablets are not a huge market as it is, and Apple would have to fend with an established PC market as well. Even if it's better than any PC tablet, will it be able to get enough traction to be viable?