Usually trial by jury in a patent case, means your claims depend on confusing a jury into believing two things are the same.

If you read the patent you will find the following problems (at glance)

Requires checking of the software product against a central ID server every time the software product is accessed. This means the central ID server is the iTunes program, since iTunes doesn't talk to Apple every time a file a played, only when a new unauthorized one is..

The patent then requires the central ID server and software product to each perform a calculation on a random number and check their results against each other for authorization. This could only apply if the Central ID server is ITMS in this case, at which point we have a problem, since you can't change your definition half way though a patent.

The patent makes reference in some places to DOS commands. In one reference, it offers no alternative. This can easily means the patent was only meant to apply on DOS based systems.

Of course he could win. There is a lot of misinformation going on here:

1) Patents are generally good for the life of the inventor, plus some grace period. There is no 7 year statute of limitation on Patents. The person may have taken this long because he needed to compare his patent to what these companies are doing.

2) If his arguments hold no water, why did Apple meet with him and try to settle out of court? Obviously Apple believes he may have a claim.

3) Patents are NOT based on first to implement. You can patent the design without ever building one. That allows you to protect your concept, giving you time to implement it at a later date.

1) Patents are generally good for the life of the inventor, plus some grace period. There is no 7 year statute of limitation on Patents. The person may have taken this long because he needed to compare his patent to what these companies are doing.

Wrong. Copyrights are good for the life of the holder, plus some number of years (which keeps increasing everytime Disney's copyrights are about to expire). It was originally 20 years, not its like 70.

Patents are good for 17 years. I think you can file for an extension of 5 years, if you have a good reason (Columbia University tried this over some allergy medication they held the patent on, saying the money they made on the patent paid for the school, so it would be OK to extend it, as it would be for the children).

2) If his arguments hold no water, why did Apple meet with him and try to settle out of court? Obviously Apple believes he may have a claim.

Because its a h*** of a lot easier and cheaper to settle out of court then to battle in court, which, even if you win, you've spent two years paying lawyers money that might be more than the settlement in the first place. Plus you got the publicity. (This is why so many suits are settled out of court, and also why so many suits are filed. The people filing the suits want the settlement, they don't want to go to court. Investor lawsuits are quite known for this, because they hope the company will settle so the bad publicity doesn't tank the stock for the next two years).

Of course, I just love it when someone sues apple over a patent case. All the mac fanboys come out proclaiming what a crock it is, and all that. Then if Apple were to pull the same thing on someone else, say MS, it'd be "Allright, beat down on dem stealin' b*******!".

Agree with the comments, but let's recognize that the US Patent Office should probably have never issued the patent in the first place! The lawyers who file patents and sue over them are smarter than the ones working for the patent office. And that leaves companies like Apple, Sony, etc stuck spending money defending against these frivolous claims. Why do you think they wait until iTunes becomes so successful? They are hoping the company will just pay them off to avoid the hassles and bad publicity. It's basically legalized blackmail!