French Week continues here at AtAT; on Monday we linked to a French article about a possible date for a Power Mac G5 speed-bump, and yesterday we pointed you towards another French piece about Apple's deadbeat status due to its refusal to pay almost two years' worth of royalties on French-sold iPods. Well, rather than break the streak, we're sticking with the royalties plotline today-- but even though our setting is once again the sweaty jungles and endless desert vistas of France, we figured we'd cut you a break on all the français lately and link to a followup article that was written natively in English. (Indeed, we've been informed that it's our patriotic duty as Lazy Americans™ to pretend that no other languages exist, and we really can't face another freakin' treason charge.)

So here goes: the Associated Press has a little more info on that whole iPod royalty commotion busting out down in France, and it sounds like Apple may well soon have yet another lawsuit on its hands. The Society of Music Creators, Composers, and Publishers (which has the oh-so-euphonic French acronym of "Sacem") estimates that Apple sold about 20,000 iPods on French soil last year alone, which, at a levy of €10 a pop, comes out to roughly $245,000 in American filthy lucre; add in all the iPods sold this year so far and the ones sold after July in 2002, factor in the levy's sliding scale (reportedly it's €20 on a 40 GB iPod), and we're probably talking about a third of a million smackers that Apple owes to French musicians. That's not exactly chicken feed, and as such, if Apple doesn't cough up soon, Sacem "will have no other option than to go immediately to court to make sure that the rights of artists, composers, and producers are respected."

Suddenly, Apple's motive in all this becomes startlingly clear: it's not that it doesn't have the cash, or doesn't want to spend the cash, or feels that the €10-per-iPod tariff is fundamentally flawed or unfair (e.g. the fee assumes that customers will use the iPod to pirate music and forces Apple to pay for that); it's that Steve is collecting lawsuits by recording artists as if they're baseball cards or something. Think about it for a second. Apple is already facing lawsuits by the Beatles and Eminem, who are (albeit in grossly different ways) a couple of the biggest acts to grace the last few decades of popular music. And now, by not paying these royalties, Steve is about to bolster his collection with a lawsuit basically filed by all French recording artists in one fell swoop. Say what you will about the man, but he's nothing if not efficient.

If we're right about this, then we can expect word of Sacem's legal action any day now-- and then all that remains is trying to figure out whom Steve will try to annoy next. Let's see, here... the Beatles, then Eminem, then France... Hey, how about Metallica? They like to sue a lot. Or is that not enough of a challenge?

Hey, speaking of lawsuits, Apple's involved in another legal battle right now-- and believe it or not, this one's actually not music-related. We're in luck, too, because while we've got this whole French streak going, here, we've actually gotten some complaints from viewers who like the new international flavor AtAT's taken on this week, but aren't crazy about our apparent obsession with the French. To that end howzabout we link to an article in German about Apple's legal tussles in China? Hoooooo-weeeee, that's some darn fine internationalizin' if we do say so ourselves! We feel just like the United Nations or something! (Say, does this mean the government will ignore us, too? At least until after tax day? 'Cause, you know, that'd be pretty sweet.)

So here's what's going down: German publication Spiegel Online reports that Apple is having some trouble trademarking its logo for use on clothing over in China. At least, that's what we could glean from the ever-popular Babelfish auto-translation, because the only thing worse than our French is our German. All that remains of German I from senior year in high school is the single phrase we try to learn in every language: "Ich habe einen Bleistift," or "I have a pencil." Looking back, it might actually have been a lot wiser to learn something more useful, like "Where is the bathroom?" or "Take my wallet but please leave me unharmed," since we never actually do have a pencil, and even if we did, we doubt many people would much care, in Germany or elsewhere. Live and learn.

Um. Right. So anyway, about that whole logo thing.

For a less-baffling rundown of the details, we turn to Macworld UK's English article-- but in keeping with our theme, it's the Queen's English, so it's still foreign by American standards. Apparently the problem is that there's a famous clothing manufacturer in China called Guangdong Apples, whose registered logo is kindasorta similar to Apple's, only without the bite taken out of it and with a stem-and-leaf where the leaf would be. The Beijing Intermediate People's Court (suppose they have a Chinese equivalent of Judge Wapner and Rusty the Bailiff?) turned down Apple's request to trademark its logo for use on clothing, unswayed by Apple's insistence that the ol' Apple-with-a-bite is "a famous one," ruling that Apple's logo isn't different enough from that of Guangdong Apples, and the Chinese company was there first.

The upshot is that Apple (our Apple) can't trademark its own logo for use on clothing in China, which, frankly, we wouldn't have expected to be that much of a problem, unless Apple plans on opening a few dozen Chinese Apple retail stores and needs to print up free t-shirts to give away at the grand openings. Nevertheless, Apple reportedly alleges that Guangdong Apples is making "illegal profits" by aping its world-famous logo, and has "launched legal action against China's trademark appraisal committee" in order to fix the problem, apparently in advance of some huge secret diversification into a new line of "softwear." Who knew?

Hey, kids, it's Wednesday (sort of), and you all know what that means: it's time for this week's Jaded Rule of Life™! In previous weeks we've shared our world-weary wisdom (accumulated via decades of bitter, bitter mistakes) by illustrating the disheartening eternal truth of such pessimistic maxims as "she's only after your money, stupid" and "there's no such thing as a free eggroll, or at least not one that you'd actually want to eat." Today we're going to continue the tradition with yet another lesson you'd only learn the hard way on your own. Ready? Here it is: never trust anything the media tells you, or else you'll wind up broke, dead, or unable to run Repair Disk Permissions.

Oh, so you want an example, do you? Allow us to chuckle in a vaguely patronizing fashion, for your doubt reveals a charming idealism that, if not corrected immediately, will surely spell your downfall. Okay, here's your example: macHOME magazine. That's a trustworthy publication, right? It's all about Mac use in the home-- iMacs running Quicken in the den, eMacs with the hottest new edutainment titles in the 2.4 kids' rooms, Mom and Dad using iBooks out on the porch while sipping iced tea and enjoying the bracing scent of freshly-cut grass that hangs in the air. What could possibly be more idyllic? Well, how about an article in macHOME's March issue called "Spring Cleaning"? It's just got "white picket fence" plastered all over it.

Except that within that article lurks the seeds of your DOOM.

Here's the what: faithful viewer Scott Pennington tipped us off to a MacFixIt note which attests that the "Spring Cleaning" article contains advice which, if followed, would ultimately lead to your undoing. In its zeal to help readers sweep their disks clean of unwanted and unneeded accumulated gunk, macHOME reported that "there is at least one folder you can empty: Macintosh HD > Library > Receipts. This folder contains installer packages that are no longer of use."

Unfortunately, this advice turns out to be wrong, wrong, wrong (although it's a misconception we've seen in the past). As MacFixIt confirms, the Receipts folder doesn't contain installers at all, but rather-- are you ready for a shock?-- receipts. (Easy, now. Breathe. Put a paper bag over your head if you think it'll help.) These are packages "with detailed information about software that has been installed" and not the installers themselves.

macHOME should probably have been tipped off by file sizes; whereas the 10.3.2 update is over 36 MB in size, the file "MacOSXUpdate10.3.2.pkg" in our Receipts folder weighs in at a mere 1.2 MB on disk. But who knows? Maybe optimists think that data shrinks after it's downloaded. After all, if they can actually believe that the glass is half-full instead of half-empty, tepid, and tainted with someone else's spit floating in it, well, who knows what other goofy notions they might have rattling around in those zany brains of theirs?

Anyway, the upshot is that if you delete those receipts, your Mac loses all the information it needs about what files are supposed to have which permissions, and thusly attempting to run "Repair Disk Permissions" in Disk Utility produces only a confused grunt and an error message complaining about "no valid packages." Okay, so you wouldn't be dead or broke, but you wanted an example, and we gave you one. So there you go, we're right about this: never trust the media.

Trust us on this one. Would we lie to you?