This message has been deleted.

The catalogue was merged with Sony Music in 1995, in due to Jackson's mounting financial problems. If hypothetically Jackson had indeed willed it to Macca, you can bet Sony Music would have contested the will in court.

He might have heard about the little boys.

Thank you for sharing that information.

First, Michael didn't buy the Beatle's catalog, he bought the ATV catalog which included the lion's share of the Lennon/McCartney which was part of the Northern Songs publication catalog, which was bought by ATV in the late '60s, but it also contained thousands of other songs from other artists and writer.
Second, this is what initially pissed off Paul at Michael, though over the years they cooled off and heated up at one another for different reasons.
Third, when Michael Jackson died Paul had no reason to push the estate over a comment Michael had made in an interview stating that he would like the music to go back to Paul, mainly due to the fact that the Lennon and McCartney contract resigned with Northern Songs back in 65 is due to expire in the near future and the music under the contract will revert back to the Lennon estate and McCartney, which is likely why McCartney has been trying to patch things up with Yoko in the hopes to get the rights put under the MPL Communications catalog.
"Do you mind if I name my first child after you? "Dipsh*t Knight" has a nice ring to it."

As I understand it, Paul bid $40M for the catalogue and MJ bid $60M. I'm a fan but it doesn't bother me that Paul is not the owner of his Beatle songs. And Paul is far too savvy to criticize MJ, or any deceased person, publicly. Paul criticized Lennon for a few things in the early 1980s and the media & Yoko were all over him for it! He learned his lesson ages ago. Fans don't want truth or honest thoughts and opinions, we want to live in Fantasy Land.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

This message has been deleted.

Guess so
Tell you what…When I send my ex-wife her money…you can lick the stamps.

Didn't Paul say they grew apart?

After Jackson died, it was rumoured that he had left the Beatles catalogue to McCartney in his will - but this turned out not to be the case.
Nevertheless, McCartney said nothing except that he enjoyed working with him,
and never had any desire to buy back the catal1c84ogue before Sony got hold of it,
even though McCartney once complained he had to pay to perform the songs live.
After the auction in 1985, McCartney asked Jackson for a raise - MJ refused.
And the two surviving Beatles, plus the widows of the two deceased Beatles,
are lucky to be rich at all - unlike the totally cheated Bay City Rollers!

At least Paul did not hound him for the catalog when he was facing the molestation charges that ruined him financially, why kick a former friend when he was down. There were rumors that MJ was thinking of returning the catalog back to Paul, who knows?

At least Paul and Yoko had nice things to say after MJ died.

who was being the bigger jerk over the situation between Paul or Michael?
Michael!
Dreams unwind, love's a state of mind
-Fleetwood Mac

Considering how much the Beatles got screwed over by Lew Grade (whom they sued), Paul could have appreciated that Allen Klein renegotiated the EMI deal to pay them 25% as of 1969/70.

• no thanks for that!
  The whole Beatles catalog of LPs was hotter thanks to the PAUL IS DEAD / PAUL HAS QUIT causing a boost in sales as the 70s began.

Michael, definitely.
Michael asked Paul, when they were working together, for business advice. Paul said to get into music publishing. Michael said "I'm going to own yours".
And low and behold he did. It was a very, very backhanded thing to do.
The Beatles were taken advantage of constantly in their career. As the most successful band in the history of history the financial rewards they did reap are nowhere near what they should have reaped.
Paul considered Michael to be a friend of his. So for a friend to screw a friend over so knowingly is despicable. Lennon and McCartney could have finally had in their possession something that should have always been theirs, ownership of their songs.
Yoko was, apparently, unwillingly to offer anymore money than she did. From what I gather the amount that Michael won with was quite close to Paul/Yoko's offer. Which is a damn shame because they would have both earned back their 'investment' easily.

who was being the bigger jerk over the situation between Paul or Michael?

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Yes, Michael out-bid Paul for The Beatles catalog because as Paul said "He was rolling in it" after "Thriller", meaning he was filthy rich at the time even Paul couldn't touch him. He also laid some blame on Yoko at t5b4he time, maybe he tried to get her to release some funds??? not sure why really.
"Instant Karma's gonna get you"

As I understand it, when they were working together Paul told Michael he shouldb68 get involved in music publishing. Just as friendly advice. Michael turned around and bought the publishing rights to the Beatles' songs. Not exactly what Paul had in mind.
And after all, I'm only sleeping.