I did not take near the number of notes that burstingsquidoo did, but I have some additional opinions and notes to offer. I'll say, also, that meeting burstingsquidoo, vasco_bill, and bill's cousin, was very pleasant. It's great to put some faces with some names, exchange ideas, and learn from these great folks. Also, they missed out on an excellent turkey burger in the cafeteria. :-)

My notes (these are not necessarily in chronological order):
1. I disagree with squidoo on the time compression argument being Apple's weakest. It certainly is if you read the patents and documents, but I think it was the most persuasive argument made today. Nicholas Brown and the other Apple lawyer did a terrible job with their arguments, though it is difficult to polish a turd. Nicholas Brown, especially, got chewed up by Judge Patel, and it was enjoyable to watch.

2. It is tough to tell how much Judge Patel understands. She doesn't come across as terribly technical to me, but she is applying her real-world experience to this case, it seems. She mentioned that she downloaded a nine hour audio book in only a few minutes and, during Nicholas Brown's argument, she brought up the fact that a remote transceiver does not need to be at a distant location, but can be next to the transmitting transceiver. She compared it to the communications when beaming data between two PDAs, for example. Patel is tough to read, however, and held her cards close, which is why it is tough to claim that there was a clear "winner" today. Patel is a heck of a lot quicker on this stuff than she leads on, though.

3. Burst made some excellent points on the "time compression" argument with two things:
a. Why would a device bother to store a time compression? Folse made this comment during his "rabbit hole" comments. Apple had claimed that one could play a record back at a faster frequency and then record it with a tape player, thus recording time compression. Burst had argued that you don't record time compression to save space within storage because its bits are exactly the same after "compression" as they were before. Apple looked like fools on this, in my opinion.
b. Apple repeatedly argued that Burst's patents apply to analog signals. Burst countered that random access storage is never used with analog signals.