Attention, all viewers who are still bouncing gleefully on the edges of their seats in fierce anticipation of an imminent record-breaking settlement between Apple and the Beatles: get up off the pins and needles and sit on something a little more comfortable, because there's a smidge more evidence hinting that our original suspicions were correct. In other words, the Beatles' record label Apple Corps may not have a slam-dunk case against our buddies in Cupertino, and the prospect of Apple Computer writing an oversize novelty check for an unprecedented sum to make this little legal indiscretion disappear may not be nearly as inevitable as Variety's "unnamed lawyer source" once claimed.

See, faithful viewer mrmgraphics flicked us a CNET article which cites "music industry sources" as claiming that "recent rumors of an incipient settlement" are "unfounded" and "baseless." Why trust CNET's unnamed music industry sources over Variety's unnamed legal source, you ask? Well, mostly because they agree with us, so we figure they must be right. (Duh.) But there's also the fact that CNET reports that "legal experts separately question whether the settlement would really be among the largest non-class-action settlements" in history. What's more, CNET backs it up somewhat by quoting its own "legal source"-- as in, an actual lawyer with an actual name and some form of accountability for his public statements-- as saying, "I would take that proposition with a big grain of salt. I can't imagine it is going to be the biggest settlement we've ever heard of."

Okay, so it's not exactly a proof of the Poincaré Conjecture, but it bolsters our skepticism of this random legal joker spouting off anonymously to Variety. It also lends a little credence to our own interpretation of the terms of the original agreement between Apple and Apple, which is that, far from not having a leg to stand on, Steve et al have at least three legs and one of those walker doohickeys, along with a serious argument that the contract in no way prohibits them from using their trademark on the iPod or the iTunes Music Store. So Apple may well choose to let a judge decide, instead of pulling out the checkbook and cutting a deal.

Then again, cutting a deal may be just what Steve wants; the guy's reportedly a monster Beatles fan, and with Paul, Ringo, and the widows Lennon and Harrison finally starting to talk to people about putting the band's music up for digital distribution for the very first time, since they're already at the table with Apple about this trademark thing, why not form an exclusive Apple-Apple music alliance as a term of some huge payout? Steve's got Apple's $5 billion in cash just burning a hole in his pocket, after all, and signing the Beatles catalog as an iTMS exclusive would be a major coup.

Reportedly the Beatles want a virtual "store within a store" in whatever service they sign with, "where song downloads might share digital shelf space with DVDs, videos and interviews." The iTMS already does artist pages, special content sections (like the Disney catalog), music videos, and spoken word content; DVDs might be a minor challenge, but remember: the iTMS uses One-Click, so does the Apple Store, and they both identify users with the same Apple ID-- and in case you've forgotten, the Apple Store did sell overpriced movie DVDs for a brief period once upon a time. In other words, Apple can give the Beatles what they want, on the most popular music download service available. And since other services have balked at the Beatles' sticker price (up to $25 million, according to some), well, why shouldn't Apple blow a little cash on some really cool content?