So how do we know that Apple's digital music one-two punch of the iPod and the iTunes Music Store has really hit it big? Well, if you look really closely and maybe squint a little, there are a few subtle hints out there-- such as the iTMS having recently sold its 300 millionth song with an ever-increasing run rate, or the comforting regularity of foamy-mouthed people with wild eyes loudly attempting to sell their own grandmothers (it's a buyer's market for geriatrics, we hear) to Apple retail staff in exchange for the hard-to-find iPod model of the moment. But if you want proof you can take to the bank-- sure, the teller might back away slowly and signal for security, but such is the price of art-- then look no further than the fact that patent lawyers are pouring out of the freakin' woodwork, and they're in a suin' mood.

For instance, take a gander at the ZDNet blog called Between the Lines pointed out by faithful viewer Gene Feierstein. It reports that an entity called Pat-rights (a name that just screams "bottom-feeding, land-grabbing patent portfolio holding company") claims that the FairPlay digital rights management scheme at the heart of the iTMS violates U.S. Patent #6,665,797, which seems to describe the mechanism by which iTunes can restrict playback of purchased iTMS songs on up to five computers registered to the buyer via the 'net. Our attention spans are way too short to dig through and try to determine whether or not the claim has technical merit, but the flashing yellow "HEY!! EXTORTION!!" sign on the company's legal strategy seems a little suspect: Pat-rights says it will file a lawsuit on March 21st unless Apple agrees to pony up a whopping 12 percent of Apple's gross from every iPod and iTunes sale.

And yes, of course it's threatening to seek treble damages. Duh. You remember how these shakedown artists operate, don't you? After all, the Imatec/ColorSync lawsuit wasn't that long ago.

Meanwhile, the iPod itself has also come under legal fire. Faithful viewer Graham Nealon tipped us off to an article in The Register which reports that an outfit called Advanced Audio Devices is suing Apple for violating U.S. Patent #6,587,403, which describes a "music jukebox which is configured for storing a music library therein." We know that the patent in question was filed on August 17th, 2000, so you might well be jumping up and down and yelling "PRIOR ART!" but unfortunately, that's probably not going to fly. True, Apple wasn't the first company to ship a hard drive-based MP3 player; it was merely the first to ship one that didn't blow chunks, and a couple of chunk-blowers definitely preceded the patent filing. But before you go pointing at, for example, this MP3newswire.net article covering the announcement of Creative's NOMAD Jukebox (which was published six months before AAD filed its patent application), you should note that the filing was "a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/111,989, filed Jul. 8, 1998, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999, filed Jul. 9, 1997." So that's probably not going to help.

The Reg seems to think that Apple's lawyers' best bet is to dicker over whether or not a song stored on the iPod's drive qualifies as an "audio signal," and if that's really the optimum strategy, Apple may well be in trouble from a patent perspective. But who cares? Look at the big picture: lawsuits like this are the surest trappings of success! Both patents, if valid, clearly cover a whole lot more products and services than just iTunes and the iPod, but the holders have chosen Apple as the target with the fattest wallet. C'mon, Microsoft has so many active lawsuits at any given time that, collectively, their gravitational pull affects the tides. They're accessories, like belts or shoes-- and Apple's wearing Prada. Now all we have to do is hope that the outcome of the lawsuits doesn't downgrade Apple to Payless.