vasco_bill wrote---> Are they totally nuts, or is there a "reason to their madness?"

Right on both counts vasco_bill.

This whole "time compression multiplexing" vs "time compressed representation" is Apple's nutty way of trying to "paper over" a massive technology issue that is going against them. Their reasoning is related to a famous recipe for NOT making "chicken salad".

The Apple legal team has been asked to make some chicken salad out of this Burst.Com "chicken sh*t". Their "reasoning" is to dump 6 tons of mayonnaise (paper work) into the mix and stir like crazy. Unfortunately for Apple, they are still not going to get any "chicken salad" out of this mess.

What is remarkable is that the "time compression multiplexing" argument was gone over in the MSFT Markman hearing and Judge Motz was "unpersuasive for several reasons".

http://www.burstingsquidoo.com/claimscon...

Yet, Apple trots this out again in great detail to fight a battle lost in the last war. WHY?

They can use a lot of mayonnaise to paper over this "time compression" issue and pray that Judge Patel comes up with a different interpretation from the US Patent Office and Judge Motz. WHY TRY THIS AGAIN?

ANSWER: Because they can't come up with any other way to invalidate what Richard Lang invented in 1990. This whole "time compression" dance demonstrates just how weak the Apple case is in this lawsuit.

It is becoming quite clear why 4 top law firms were eager to take on contingency the Burst.Com side in this dispute. The work being done by the Burst.Com legal team has been very impressive.