Today’s big court news, concerning former Sex Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten and his failed attempt to block the songs from being used in a TV drama about the band, has naturally sparked a range of informed opinions and discussion from the legal community.

Only kidding. Of course, most lawyers on social media have used the case as a chance to make a joke using the band’s back catalogue, just like probably 90% of the rest of the internet. Nuanced legal debate has so far been Pretty Vacant.

In the ruling itself, judge Sir Anthony Mann kept things straight, eschewing the chance to describe the Pistols as a ‘popular beat combo’ and landing instead on the simple ‘punk band’. He accepted the arguments of the group’s former drummer Paul Cook and guitarist Steve Jones that there was an agreement to go with majority voting rules on future issues such as this. Rotten, whose real name is John Lydon, had argued that he did not know the effect of the 1998 agreement and did not really know or appreciate its effect. It was reported during the trial that Lydon had likened the agreement to ‘slave labour’ and could not remember signing anything.

Alas, the presence of lawyers at the time contributed to Lydon’s court defeat. The judge noted that he must have been advised about the agreement and its consequences, and he had on his side an English lawyer, a US attorney and his manager. The ruling added: ‘It is highly likely that, even if he did not read it himself, it will have been explained to him and he will have understood its effects.’

The six-part drama series, directed by Danny Boyle, will now presumably include Sex Pistols songs (something of a necessity, given the subject matter). Lydon’s Q&A tour of the UK, meanwhile, starts next month. It will be a brave audience member who asks about this litigation.