This interest-conflicted, long-BRST, inexpert mind finds the following interesting….

In the Haskell patent filed with the Court by Apple,

ONE

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...

….the phrase “time compression” is ALWAYS followed by the word “multiplexing.” No exception. It is never cited on its own.

TWO

Also, time compression is used to make a “replica” of the signal, not a “representation”

“…..extracting a time compressed replica of said video signal and for extending said replica to said communication path..”

There is a huge difference between a “replica” and a “representation”.

THREE

The Haskell patent states twice its primary thrust that:

“Unfortunately, the art appears to be remiss in the time compression multiplexing of video signals.”

and

“Unfortunately, the time compression multiplexing art appears remiss in the processing of video signals.”

Thus Haskell does not invent time compression multiplexing per se. It refines it. And indeed it cites as its only prior US art the patent that does do that, 3,697,682:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...

And it clear from 3,697,682 that time compression is being used for two purposes and two purposes only:

FIRST “…The video signal is thereby compressed by a factor of N on a frame-by-frame basis, and additional data can be time multiplexed between the compressed frames….”

And

“…In accordance with an aspect of the invention, the vacant time intervals between successive compressed frames may be used advantageously to transmit additional data such as a signal containing color information or, in fact, any signal having its energy restricted to time periods no longer than the vacant time intervals between the compressed frames….”

Comment: The purpose here is to deliver ADDITIONAL data. Not DATA faster.

SECOND “..Alternatively, the BANDWIDTH of the signal can be reduced by stretching the time-compressed frames…”

And

“…It is another object of my invention to increase the number of video signals which can be included within a given bandwidth….It is a further object of my invention to provide a method of reducing the bandwidth of a video signal….”

Comment: the purpose is to achieve a BANDWIDTH compressed representation. NOT A TIME COMPRESSED representation.

FOUR

3,697,682 cites only two patents as prior art:

3,484,544 is equally and exclusively focused on a method of utilizing bandwidth:

“..FREQUENCY INTERLACING OF MULTI-VIDEO PROGRAMS …A principal object of the invention is to provide novel methods and apparatus for simultaneously transmitting a plurality of video programs from a single transmitter using a bandwidth normally required for a single video 40 program….”

1,769,920 is equally and exclusively focused on a method of utilizing bandwidth:

“…An object of the invention is to improve the utilization of the frequency transmission band involved in signaling for such types of transmission as television and high speed picture transmission….”

**********************
Concluding comment: Thus there is absolutely no scintilla of evidence in Haskell or any of its chain of prior art going back to the 1929 that has anything to do with using data compression to deliver audio/video FASTER. As I have stated before,

(http://burstingsquidoo.com/Treatises/Tre... )

…all this earlier intellectual property was about bandwidth compression. It was about delivering more program material, NOT about delivering it faster.

The latter is what BRST invented. And Apple has stolen.

Haskell is an absolute dead end for Apple.