Apple iPod Essentials   Tracking the Pulse of iPod

Here's a story I'll be following: two separate and unrelated patent infringement lawsuits have been brought against Apple Computer. The first was brought by Chicago-based Advanced Audio Devices which owns patent number 6,587,403 relating to "a music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein".

Disclosed is a music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein. The music jukebox includes a housing, audio input structure on the housing for receiving audio signals, audio output structure on the housing for outputting audio signals, and a data storage structure in the housing for storing audio signals. The music jukebox is configured such that a music library of sound tracks is storable in the data storage structure. The music jukebox includes means for selecting a sound track from the music library stored in the data storage structure to play through the audio output structure, and the housing includes a display thereon which identifies sound tracks in the music library. Preferably, the music jukebox is configured such that the sound tracks stored in the data storage structure are editable before being played through the audio output structure.

In the second suit, Hong Kong-based Pat-rights has contacted Apple according to a press release on their web site, concerning their patent number 6,665,797 related to the Apple/iTunes FairPlay Digital Rights Management [see related post]. And, Pat-rights is demanding 12% of profits earned by from sales of iTunes and iPod, and is thought to have given the company until 21st March to respond.

A central program comprising a EI sub-program for providing identity information of the rightful user thereof for accessing a network central computer to obtain service(s) or software product(s) or alike, in which a secure operation on an account of the rightful user for payment therefor involved; and a AS sub-program for using the existence of the EI sub-program in a computer as a precondition for authorising use of those software products obtained on that computer. The central program is for managing the use of the individual sub-programs therein so that the AS sub-program can be protected from being copied individually.

A cursory read of the patent claim seems to only talk about "Software" protection, digital art, so I rather doubt they have a chance winning that case.

If I get so lucky as to have some visitors with legal backgrounds, or experience in patent infringement, please share your opinions.