About the kind of future Apple computers sees in iTunes/iPod. Obviously Apple could sell off their iTunes devision and take a smaller hit from this mess but I'm willing to bet that in the long run it'll be better to get this monkey off their back once and for all, which is what I'm assuming the fat payout would do.

If the payout is going to be as gargantuan as the article claims, wouldn't it (potentially) be cheaper for Apple Computer just to buy Apple Corps? It'd finish this ongoing ritual of paying extortionate sums of money every few years once and for all.

Oh well, I guess we can kiss goodbye any hopes we once had of seeing the Beatles' collection on the iTunes Music Store anytime soon...

I can see this being good in the long run if, as part of the settlement negotiation: a) iTunes gets to be the first music store with access to the Beatles portfolio; and b) it clears the way for Apple to move towards music publishing as a sort of online-only label.

I'll chime in on that!

If it's any consolation to iTunes fans, Beatles' music will go off U.K. copyright in a of couple years, although I've heard that lawmakers are trying to amend the laws to prevent that.

Change the name?! HERETIC!!

;)

If Apple Computer is paying Apple Corps a ton of money, I guess that it is very probable that the Beatles may soon be on the iTMS. That might be the reason for such a large settlement... seriously whoever gets the Beatles on their collection first will win the battle for online music sales. It doesn't matter anything else ultimately if you don't have the music to sell. Whoever has the beatles will get a LOT.

Would you actually go out of your way to buy Beatles music off of iTunes Music Store even if it was available? As if the world hasn't heard their music played over and over on any classic rock FM station for the past 25 years...

This is not a punishment, or a fine, or anything that will be decided by a judge. The article is talking about a "settlement"... That's when two parties agree on a number to make the case go away quickly.

Banana Computers, Inc. And in case Apple Corps doesn't get it, stick one up their a** so they understand once and for all.

"Apple should just spin off a new company called iTunes"

They have essentially already separated iTunes and iPods and put them into their own company sub division with its own name. I expect it was done for this very Apple corps issue. If Apple had not of done this, I expect Apple Corps would be after even more money..

"wouldn't it (potentially) be cheaper for Apple Computer just to buy Apple Corps?"

Apple corps is not for sale. And even if it was, it would be for ludicrous amounts of money that only the largest organisations could afford. Apple Computer not being one of them..

I remember when the Beatles were a bright light, an ideal, the image of youth finally getting their chance to change the world.

I thought all you need is love.

But I guess that's been trademarked now. Love is going to cost a pretty penny now. The Beatles have sold out like everyone else.

This is what is wrong with our rotten society. I am going to go out and throw up on my beatles records.

Good day to you all. >:(

"This is not a punishment, or a fine, or anything that will be decided by a judge. The article is talking about a "settlement"... That's when two parties agree on a number to make the case go away quickly."

Yeah right. If Apple Corps. wanted to, they could drop the case altogether - that'd sure make it go away quickly. But they don't want to do that, do they? Instead, they want to extort as much of King Steve's hard-earned cash as they possibly can in an effort to keep their flagging business afloat. Pitiful.

And to think that I like the Beatles...

Yeah and who gets it? Paul McCartney you might guess, well he has a little of it, Ringo might still have a minor stake but the big owner is Michael Jackson, yup wacko jacko, so this is how he'll get funding for his defense team. I like the Sosumi idea, I think they'd have a hard time demonstrating any damage to them in their market.

Apple is getting nailed for an old agreement they made with Apple Records, which they were ill-advised to sign. They agreed not to enter into the music market. If someone promised you they wouldn't do something and then they went and did it, wouldn't you be upset?

As for changing the name of Apple Computer, that is a HORRIBLE idea. Apple is one of the most recognized brands in the world, which in itself is worth a fortune. You may as well suggest Coke go through a name change.

And whomever suggested it was a bad idea for Apple to invest a lot of resources in iPod/iTunes, I can only thank my lucky stars that you are not at the helm of Apple. iPod/iTunes could very well be the thing that keeps Apple a relevant force in computing into the future.

There's no doubt Apple Comp knew it would have to "face the (Beatles') music" when it invented iTunes and iPod from the beginning.

A settlement, while expensive, will be far better than a full on, ugly PR lawsuit with one of the greatest bands in history over an iron clad non-music agreement that Apple Comp has had full knowledge of since 1991. I just cannot see the Beatles as the bad guys in this issue - and I'll bet, neither can Steve Jobs...

Meanwhile, the bright spot in all this is it really isn't farfetched to possibly think that maybe soon, iTunes will be carrying the full Beatles catalogue and Sir Paul and Ringo will be sporting iPods in tv commercials...

Whoever said they should pay it out in vouchers:

This is a *settlement* to a *company*. This isn't a class action lawsuit where you're sending a bunch of small payments to many people as punishment. The only entity that's going to get money from this is Apple Corps (Apple Records), and I doubt they would agree to a settlement for Apple product vouchers.

Whoever said Michael Jackson owns most of Apple Corps:

You have no idea what you're talking about. Years ago, Jacko bought ATV music, which owned the publishing rights to the Lennon-McCartney songs that had been originally held by Northern Songs, Ltd. That is a completely different business entity from Apple.

Well that was enough for me to dump all my Apple stock for the time being. If the settlement is half as large as they are making it out to be, then the stock should sink a few bucks per share.

Shame in that it has been on such a nice roll!

my expectation is that Apple bought something to go along with it. Like perhaps a Beatle on the BoD or exclusive rights to distribute Beatles music via the iTunes music store.

What constitutes a 'record fine' anyway? $27 million? $127 million?

I'd like to work with a Banana....

Apple Computer, Inc. could still fight it. While they make a handheld device that plays music and software that sells/manages other labels' music, they are not a record label themselves. Apple does not produce their own music, and they have not signed any artists to recording deals.
That may give them at least some defense.
Biggest settlement? Bah! I don't believe it. There hasn't been that much damage (if any) to Apple Corps Records.

is that Steve Jobs loves the Beatles. If this were any other band, they would be dragging this through the courts for years.

the last settlement was because apple include speakers in its computers. The agreement was apple has absolutly NOTHING to do with music at all.

Actually, it was having A/V capability at all. What brought about the lawsuit was the inclusion of speakers, a CD drive and Audio In/Out of high enough quality to work as a music player. I think someone on Slashdot put it best when they said that Apple Records' primary function today is to release 25-year-old music and pop up every 10 years to sue Apple Computer when cash reserves get low.

"The numbers could be mind boggling"

No. The number infinimuchoquadragabizillion is mind boggling.

A few million/billion here and there just shows how dumb the original settlement was and why Apple is not fighting to the bone to overturn or render invalid the original settlement.

Heck, publicize this further in the court of pubic opinion.

I can see the slogan right now: "We are stop selling iPods effectively immediately because Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono want more money. Write to Sir Paul and Ms. Ono at ....."

I remember reading some of the language in the original settlement in a much better researched article. I specifically remember that the language stated that Apple couldn't sell any "physical media" with music on it. That rule out the itunes store and the ipod from being covered. The itunes store isn't physical media. And the ipod itself is only physical media in the sense that a blank tape is physical media. And if they outlaw the ipod they could easily enforce apple not selling computers with hard drives in them since they are essentially the same thing. There really isn't a logical difference between an ipod and the ibook. Both are portable, both have displays, both have communication interfaces, both have software, hard drives, accessories, and OS's. If Apple corp wins this I don't think a settlement should include any more than changing the name of the store and ipod to "iTunes store & iTunes player" and legal fees. Don't you have to show damages? This doesn't even sound right. Huge settlement? It would be the stupidest management move ever. If Microsoft can get away with real corporate crimes and pay almost nothing keep, keep your lawyers busy.

I've said it before - they should just buy out Apple Corp. Who would be a better company to guard the legacy of the Beatles catalog? The Beatles are all getting old and when Paul & Ringo goes, the heirs are just gonna sell it anyways - Heather Mills & Stella McCartney already hate each other so why not get the cash now instead it all going to probate lawyers later. Apple could lock out WMA, Real or whoever else - I like the Beatles but I'm not a baby boomer so they're just good songs and not like religious music to me - it would not be abuge money maker but it would be symbolic. The baby boomer jounralists would fall over themselves that WMA is doomed without Beatle tracks.

My daughter needs a new phonograph.
She wore out all the needles.
Besides, I broke the old one in half.
I hate the Beatles.

Apple may be able to turn the situation around to leap frog its competitors yet again. A tight relationship with Apple Corp may give Apple Computer access to more than just songs from Beatles' reportoire. Think Beatles + iTunes + Reality TV (a la "American Idol"). MS + Napster is so geeky.

If anyone covering this story did even a little research, they could find out how absurd it is to allege that a large settlement is imminent. Apple Computer has the FAR stronger argument based on the terms of the agreement in question. Read for your self:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm

The agreement clearly contemplates that Apple Computer could distribute music, but could not distribute it on pre-recorded physical media. Frankly, Apple Corp's lawsuit is almost frivolous.

The lawyer representing the Beatles is spinning this. Although there may be some fact buried in this I think Apple will be getting something in return for a deal. Like once and for all time getting Apple Corp off of Apple computer's back. I think Apple new what it was doing "bringing" this suit upon them. It may have been the opportunity to challenge an agreement that Apple feels is not binding due to the radical changes in technology, the music industry and how multi faceted corporations have become.

I love both the Beatles and Apple, but, in this case, Apple Computer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. iTunes clearly violates the '91 agreement.

That being said, I agree with an earlier poster that changing the name could be a possibility. Either that, or make iTunes a completely seperate entity.

In any case, with any luck, we'll be downloading Beatles songs (and Badfinger songs, for that matter) in the near future.