4. Apple is desperate to make this about storage. They want to eliminate iPods from the potential infringement scope, I believe. Apple argued vehemently that Burst's patents do not apply to storage devices. They seem to be gearing up for an argument that iPods are simply storage devices.

5. Powers referred several times to Burst's patents as being "lawyer's patents" rather than "inventor's patents" because, he contended, Burst was very cagey and clever with their language. I'll tell you what, though, Apple's entire legal time brought out the smoke, mirrors, and BS. They had a better special effects show than any I've seen at a concert.

6. Nicholas Brown is one of the most smug and arrogant people I have ever seen. When he got torn apart by Judge Patel, I felt that couldn't have happened to a better man. :-)

7. Apple, over and over, used the argument that non-compressed data can be sent faster than real-time if it has a fast enough connection (enough bandwidth), while a data-compressed audio/video could be transmitted slower than real-time if the connection is slow enough. They continually used extremes. Let's do the math, though, and this is a situation where Dr. Hemami shined. She brought up the fact that Apple was using extremes, and if you look at bandwidth amounts in between, such as DSL, an uncompressed (data) takes longer than real-time.

8. During the means-with-function debate, Paine brought out an excellent point, namely that Burst's patents call for a decompression device. Why would time compression need that, since time compression is not compressed on the storage media? Awesome.

9. Apple pointed out that Burst made different construction claims during the MS case than they are now. Patel stated that it did not make sense to do that, and that a patent says one thing. She seemed to backpedal a bit and realize that the same language within a patent can apply to different products in different ways, but I can't be sure. It was a tense moment, in my opinion, for Burst.