Take Apple, for instance. Just by flexing a few muscles and making a few deals, the Cupertino computer company has been the lead story on more than just a few newspapers and tech-oriented Web sites of late. Sure, the company still has to sort out that nasty lawsuit with the other Apple – Apple Corps Ltd, corporate home of The Beatles. But even news on that front hasn’t exactly been negative for Steve Jobs and company, either.

For starters, Apple got a mid-week boost in its street cred by announcing a deal with the Red Hot Chili Peppers that, through iTunes, gives fans a jump on tickets for the band’s upcoming tour when they preorder the Peppers’ new album, Stadium Arcadium. Those opting for the downloads will also get in on a presale four days before tickets are released to the public.

But wait; there’s more.

Fans going the Apple preorder route will also immediately receive the album’s first single, “Dani California.” They will also receive an audio commentary by the band, a video detailing the making of “Dani California” and a full-color digital booklet when the album is released May 9th. Finally, everyone who preorders through iTunes will be eligible to win the band’s complete catalog and a limited-edition Chili Peppers iPod.

Within a few hours of the announcement, news of the iTunes/Chili Peppers caper had already circumnavigated the globe, making headlines not only on music Web sites, tech blogs and newswires, but also media outlets as diverse as MTV, India’s NewKerala.com and Playfuls.com in Romania. When you consider the promotion is for a tour of North America, grabbing all the international coverage is more than just strategic planning. It’s a doggone PR coup.

But grabbing all that international attention was only one slice of Apple’s good fortune, as the company was also spotlighted in news stories about record labels wanting a bite out of the Apple/iTunes pie as well as coverage detailing the ongoing Apple Corps v. Apple lawsuit.

Sure, lawsuit coverage isn’t exactly a marketer’s dream, but sometimes any publicity is good publicity.

First, the labels, pricing and iTunes;

It’s no secret the major labels want to raise the 99-cent per track iTunes charge. Late last year, Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. said Apple should allow for different pricing structures and maybe even give labels a piece of iPod moola.

Likewise, EMI Group CEO Alain Levy is keen on a pricing structure where songs by top-selling bands carry a higher price tag than lesser-known acts.

Of course, Jobs’ response to suggestions that iTunes should raise the 99-cent ceiling has already been heard around the world several times. Last September, during the Apple Expo in Paris, Jobs responded by saying, “So if they want to raise the prices, it just means they’re getting a little greedy.”

Can you guess who received the most press from making the above remarks? Was it Bronfman? Levy? Jobs? When a perceived music outsider calls the major labels “greedy,” fans aren’t all that likely to side with the suits from the labels. Score another round of good consumer relations for the house that Jobs built.

Then there’s the lawsuit. Apple Corps and Apple Computer have sparred more than a few times over the years.

As you can guess, it’s about the use of the word “Apple.” Jobs has freely admitted throughout the years that he and his Apple Computer co-founding buddy Steve Wozniak chose the name out of their love of Beatles music. However, Apple Corps had a problem with the name. Back in the 1980s, it extracted a promise from Apple that the latter wouldn’t use the trademark in music-related endeavors. For a while, everything between the two Apples was, well, as smooth as apple pie a la mode.

But by the end of the 1980s, more and more musicians went digital and were recording musical ones and zeros with Apple computers. Apple Corps took notice. After many legal maneuvers, Apple Computer ended up paying Apple Corps $26.5 million in an out-of-court, confidential settlement that supposedly expanded upon how Apple Computer could stick with its favorite fruit.

But that was 1991. Digital downloading was almost unheard of, iTunes wasn’t a brand, and Jobs wasn’t even with Apple.

Currently, lawyers for both sides of the trademark controversy have managed to get fairly accurate media coverage of their legal jousts. This is no easy trick in the world of 10-second sound bites.

Representing the Beatles’ Apple, barrister Geoffrey Vos pointed out that Apple Computer had infringed on Apple Corps by entering the music business. For that alleged deed, Apple Corps wants Apple Computer to deep six its fruity logo as well as pay Apple Corp. unspecified damages.

“We say Apple Computer has been using the Apple mark in connection with musical content,” Vos said during closing arguments. “It uses those marks on its music store site at the point of sale of the music content … it signs artists on its site in just the way a record company would.

Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? Apple Computer is selling songs via its iTunes Music Store, therefore Apple Computer is in the music business.

But Apple Computer begged to differ, saying that it’s not in the music business, but in the digital distribution business.

Representing the computer company, Anthony Grabiner said ads featuring artists such as Eminem and U2 were entitled to carry the logo because the ads were promoting the iTunes store and not the actual music.

“Viewers aren’t ignorant people, but … have significant understanding of what Apple Computer does and the object of the exercise, accepted by people watching, was to get the benefit of the download.

“Apple Computer has the exclusive right to use the apple mark on such a broadcast, if used to indicate the source or origin of the hardware and downloading services mentioned in the advert,” Grabiner said.

What it may boil down to is how the court decides to interpret that 1991 agreement between the two parties. Apple Computer claims the agreement allowed for “distribution of digital entertainment content,” while Apple Corps says the computer company violated the deal by providing a “seamless integration of hardware, software and music.”

But no matter which way the court decides, coverage of the trial has only added to the perceived total global domination appearance Apple has in the digital download biz. Whether the news has been about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, so-called greedy record labels or a trademark infringement suit, the message has been Apple, Apple, Apple, iTunes, iTunes, iTunes. Publicity, like that usually doesn’t come cheap, but Jobs may have set a new benchmark for brand penetration. Minus legal fees, of course.