Well, so much for the home court advantage. (Court. Get it? Never mind.) You know, of course, that Apple is being sued by the other Apple, the record label owned by the former Beatles and their kin, because our Apple allegedly violated the terms of an agreement that it would keep its mitts out of the music business. You may also have known that our Apple was trying to get the proceedings moved across the pond, from Merry Olde England to the sunnier climes of California. The proposal had to be approved by judges in both jurisdictions, and about a week and a half ago Macworld UK reported that a California judge said that, yes, since the Beatles have "filed against Apple Computer in California three times in the past," it was "immensely reasonable" of Apple to defend itself on its home turf-- although we suspect that the judge just wants a couple of autographs and a snapshot with his arms around Paul and Ringo.

Sadly, however, the change of venue was not to be; faithful viewer mrmgraphics forwarded us a Reuters article which reports that a London judge "struck down Apple's request to have the case heard by California courts." That presumably means that Apple's lawyers are going to be spending a lot more time suspended several miles up over the Atlantic than most people can reasonably be expected to endure. On the bright side, though, they're probably going to reap the bittersweet reward of a ton of frequent flyer miles before this whole mess is hammered out.

Then again, we're not entirely sure that keeping the trial in London is all that major a setback. For one thing, Apple clearly has local counsel in the U.K. (no American lawyer could get away with using the phrases "I'm delighted to hear that," "we would perhaps have sent you one," and "if that would not have been improper" without getting beaten about the head and shoulders), so it's not like Apple's lawyers would be flying to Heathrow and back every other day. And don't forget, the London judge in the case has admitted that he's an iPod owner, so you have to figure that it's in his best interest to allow Apple to proceed with development-- at least until the iTunes Music Store makes it to Europe. So the judge may well be skewed slightly in Apple's favor. Woo-hoo!

Unless, of course, his iPod's nonreplaceable battery lasted only 18 months and he's therefore itching either to videotape himself committing petty acts of vandalism, or to smack down the company who made the thing with a big, fat ruling for the plaintiffs. Hmmmmm... was this the same judge who just nixed Apple's motion to get the trial moved back to California? Because if so, it sounds like he may, despite his iPod ownership, be acting (shudder) in a fair and impartial manner. Drat the luck, eh? But don't worry; from our understanding, English courtroom drama isn't much different than our own, except there's the added entertainment value of some people wearing those goofy white wigs. So that's a bonus for us, anyway.