Insert cliché about the occurrence of precipitation generally coinciding with the condition known as "pouring" here; just yesterday we mentioned that rapper Eminem had sued Apple over the use of one of his songs in an iTunes commercial, and then today we find that bona fide courtroom drama has just commenced in the Apple-vs.-Apple (read: Beatles-vs.-Apple) legal tussle. Movement in two recording artist lawsuits in the same week? Hallelujah-- and it's only Wednesday! If what they say about things always happening in threes holds true, then we suppose we can expect one more rock star lawsuit against Apple to show up within the next couple of days. Our money's on one by Courtney Love-- that lady just seems like she's itching for a fight. (Grounds, shmounds; she'll find some reason.)

Anyway, details on the Eminem suit were a little light yesterday, but now that there's been a day or so for people to dig a bit deeper, things are looking decidedly Less Good™ for Apple. Check out MacMinute for a juicy look at the 15-page lawsuit, including actual scans of the incriminating email from Apple's ad agency Chiat/Day in which the firm acknowledges that it did not have permission to use the song-- a full two months before the commercial wound up on the airwaves anyway. Whoops.

According to the suit, after Chiat/Day was denied the use of "Lose Yourself," it tried to license "The Real Slim Shady" instead, for a fee of $300,000. (That explains the mystery of the second "Jacob" ad.) However, that's when Steve Himself got into the mix, called the publishing company, and said it's "Lose Yourself" or nothing; he told Eminem to "rethink" his position, Eminem told his publishers to "end all discussions regarding the use of any of his compositions in Apple's ad campaigns" (although we strongly suspect those weren't his exact words; none of them is four letters long), and a couple of months later the commercials were broadcast anyway. Hey, didn't Steve say that stealing is corrosive to one's character? Maybe he's got Karmic Rust-Oleum or something.

Meanwhile, in Beatle country, Bloomberg reports that Apple has asked London's High Court to allow the lawsuit to be moved to California, presumably because it's sunnier there and it's easier to find good avocados. Lawyers for The Beatles want to keep the case in London, from which we infer that they just aren't fans of fresh guacamole. Apparently both the London court and a California judge have to rule on the issue, and if they don't agree on a common locale, the trial might proceed in both places. Woo-hoo, intercontinental courtroom intrigue! It's the stuff that miniseries are made of!

We also get a glimpse into Apple's defense strategy, here: whereas its agreement with The Beatles was that it would never go into the music business, Apple is apparently arguing that the iPod and iTunes are kosher endeavors because they actually deal with "data transmission"-- those "songs" are really just collections of ones and zeros that Apple is shuttling around at 99 cents a pop. Sound a little sketchy to you? Well, okay, but believe it or not, it just may be enough, because get this: "Justice Edward Mann asked if he was disqualified from presiding over the case because he owns an iPod." Score one for Apple, whose attorney replied to the judge, "I'm delighted to hear that-- we would perhaps have sent you one for free if that would not have been improper." So the judge is a 'Pod-lover; do we sense a slam-dunk in the offing?