So, the friend of a friend told me that the Beatles is finally going to be on iTunes tomorrow.

Not so fast, EMI immediately countered.

In the latest chapter of a saga filled with more "will they, or won't they?" than a shoujo manga, Engadget picked up a 9to5Mac report today stating that Yoko Ono is talking about an iTunes arrival for the Beatles on an already Fab Four-packed 9/9/09. We've already speculated about it once, but Yoko's words caused the Twitter feeds to immediately jump alive with fevered speculation that maybe, just maybe, tomorrow's finally the day.

I'm with Steve Sande. Seeing Paul, Ringo, Julian Lennon and Dhani Harrison (who helped mastermind The Beatles: Rock Band -- my reservation was made for the game six months ago) on stage together to announce the Beatles on iTunes would be fantastic. However, I'd rather see the release be done right than thrown together at the last minute. The optimistic side of me is sure that it won't be long before the Beatles and iTunes will be goin' steady for good.

As intrepid TUAW reporter Mike Schramm told you a few days ago, Apple has an event planned for September 9, 2009. Pundits are expecting the event to be the usual Apple fall event where the new line of iPods will be announced, but there's something else happening on September 9th that could herald the long-awaited arrival of The Beatles in the iTunes Store.

The Official Beatles Shop website is showing 9/9/09 as the release date for new, digitally remastered versions of the entire Beatles library. That's also the day that The Beatles: Rock Band is released. What better way for Apple to finally bring Apple Corps into the digital age than to give the Fab Four a home in iTunes?

Of course, the Beatles and Apple, Inc. have had a tumultuous legal history, and recently George Harrison's son Dhani Harrison was quoted in Blender as saying he didn't feel that the iTunes Store's per-song charge was a fair price for Beatles songs. He also mentioned that the remaining members of The Beatles were looking into creating their own website for digital downloads. Given the shaky history of most Beatles business ventures, I wouldn't give that comment a second thought.

Just last month, Sir Paul McCartney told the Guardian that in terms of the Beatles library appearing in iTunes, "The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process... I really hope it will happen because I think it should."

Frankly, I think the music world and Apple both need a little magic right now, so I'm hoping to see Steve Jobs, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Dhani Harrison, and Julian Lennon on stage together on September 9th. That would be even better than an announcement of a Mac tablet.

Talks between Apple, Inc., Apple Corps, and EMI to bring the Beatles catalogue to the iTunes Store have "stalled," according to a statement by Paul McCartney to the Associated Press.

McCartney said, "The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process." He told the BBC that "heavy negotiations" were in progress with EMI, who said they were "working hard to secure agreement with Apple Corps."

My ill-informed, Captain Obvious guess? Someone's holding out for more money. The AP oddly suggested that the holdup is related to a trademark dispute between Apple Corps and Apple, Inc. which was settled in court last year.

McCartney continued, "I really hope it will happen because I think it should."

[Via Cult of Mac.]

Apple Inc. and the Beatles' record label Apple Corps Ltd. have finally buried the hatchet and settled their very, very on-going dispute over 'Apple' related trademarks. After more than a decade of fighting over Apple's use of the name in selling music-related products, as well as music itself with the iTunes Store, the two companies are calling it a day. From the press release:

"Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use."

In other words: it seems as though Apple Inc. has won the trademarks, but we don't really know how or why. In fact, both parties are eating their own legal fees. A quote from Steve Jobs doesn't help much either:

"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."

Unfortunately, this hasn't heralded the much rumored debut of the Beatles' catalog in the iTunes Store, despite Mr. Jobs' open invitation - yet.

Guy Kewney is something of an expert on technology, the man pictured to the right is a cab driver. Which would you expect to see on the BBC talking about the recent Apple v. Apple verdict?

Well, the BBC was hoping for Guy Kewney, but due to a mix up they got the cab driver who tried his best to answer the questions (you can watch it here, his face is priceless). You can read Guy's take at his blog.

I'm just waiting for the day when the BBC mistakenly asks me for my opinion about anything.

Thanks, Will Gore.

UPDATE: Andy points us to Guy Kewney's blog, which tells us that this guy (also named Guy) isn't a cabbie, but rather an IT worker who was at the BBC for a job interview.

With the lawsuit behind them, Apple is actively trying to get Beatles music added to the iTunes Music Store. According to an article at Bloomberg, Apple Corps is currently remastering the Beatles' entire catalog, in preparation for electronic distribution. However, a vendor has not yet been named. Eddy Cue, Apple's vice president of iTunes, hopes they'll look towards the iTMS:

"We certainly will do everything we can to get them on iTunes. The Beatles aren't available in any digital format today but they are going to be one day. We certainly hope that happens on iTunes."

Is there too much animosity between the two giants, or can they let bygones be bygones? Time will tell. All I know is that my iPod is just begging for the White Album.

[Via MacDailyNews]

As you probably know, Apple Computer emerged victorious (for now) in their suit with Apple Corps, The Beatles' record label. Today, the full version of the final decision has been made available online. It's very extensive, and outlines not only MR Justice Mann's recent decision but the details of the 1991 agreement between Apple and Apple Corps. There's a lot to read, but it should be interesting to anyone who was following the case.

[Via Macworld UK]

After emerging victorious in the trademark dispute between Apple Computer and Apple Corps, Steve is extending the olive branch to the record label. In a statement made to Macworld, Steve said, "...We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store...We are glad to put this disagreement behind us."

Before you get a warm, fuzzy feeling in your heart, know this: Apple Corps have already issued an appeal. Can't we all just get along?

[Via Playlist Mag]

Wow. As you may know, Apple (the computer company) was sued by Apple Corps (the Beatles' record label) for use of the apple logo and name in conjunction with iTunes, the iTunes Music Store and the iPod. The two groups came to a tentative agreement back in 1991 which stated, briefly, that Apple Computer would not go into the business of creating music. The iTunes Music Store and iPod got Apple Corp's ire up, and they took Apple to court. Today, Mr Justice Edward Mann ruled in Apple's favor:

"I conclude that the use of the apple logo ... does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work. I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves."

As a result, the iTunes Music Store and iPod will be able to use the name "Apple." Plus, Apple Corps has to pick up Apple Computer's legal bill, to the tune of £2m. Now that's a sour note.

Thanks, Jake!

Dear Apple Corps:

I was a huge Sesame Street fan growing up. My parents didn't let us watch most of the junk of TV but Sesame Street was on the approved list. And so I became quite familiar with the show and and some of its memorable songs. The "pinball" song that counts from 1-12, or Ernie's "Rubber Ducky" song, or my favorite "One of these things is not like the other" which was used to teach small children how to differentiate between things that are similar but different.

Seeing as you, the executives at Apple Corps--the music publishing label responsible primarily for The Beatles music--didn't appear to have watched much Sesame Street to learn this valuable elementary skill, I felt it would be useful to help you out a bit.

Here's a list of things that have similar names but are not the same:

1) General Mills makes breakfast cereal. General Motors makes automobiles.
2) Discovery Channel is a television station. Discover Card is a credit card company.
3) Cisco makes networking switches. Sysco is a large food distributor.

See the pattern, Apple Corps? Just because two things have similar names, doesn't mean they are in competition with each other. I know your fear is that legions of confused consumers might end up wandering aimlessly around the growing number of Apple Stores looking for Beatles music but really, have a little more faith in the intelligence of your customers. After all, I don't hear stories of restaurants suddenly getting deliveries of Catalyst switches instead of potatoes, or people shopping for their Lucky Charms at their local dealership.

Instead you give us another lawsuit over the Apple brand name. This has been legally settled several times in the past with Apple Computer paying you many millions of dollars. Give it a rest. Apple Computer has single-handedly saved the music industry from obsolescence and helped it migrate to the digital future. Millions of people are buying songs from the iTunes Music Store, netting a profit for all parties involved (though the benefit to the artist is still questionable), and yet arguably the single most popular band of all time is still missing from the most popular downloadable music store. All for a stupid argument over a name?

Sesame Street taught me to understand the differences between similar things, but it also taught me that greed is bad and that underestimating people is a mistake. I would love to see the statistics on the little search box that Apple Computer includes in their iTunes program. How many people do you think are searching the ITMS every day for Beatles music to buy? I'm willing to bet it's a very large number. Every day that Beatles music isn't available for sale on the iTunes Music Store is a day that you lose. Get a clue and release your substantial and popular music library to the iTunes Music Store and stop beating that dead legal horse. Few, if any, of your customers care about the name of your record label or that it's similar to the name of a popular computer company.