10. Apple tried really hard to cast Burst as opportunistic and sleazy. Patel doesn't seem to buy it, but it sure tasted poorly in my mouth and would to anyone who knows Richard Lang's story. Did I mention that I dislike lawyers?

11. There were several times when Richard Lang shook his head in disgust at the incredulity of Apple's claims. Apple really poured it on and made some incredibly absurd claims. Many times, not only did Richard Lang shake his head in disgust, but Burst's lawyers and many folks in the benches laughed at how silly many of Apple's claims sounded. One thing's for sure, Apple is getting it's money's worth as the Apple lawyers consume a lot of time spinning and huckstering.

12. Virtually all of Apple's arguments were based on the prosecution history of Apple's patents. I did not expect so much weight to be placed upon the uncontested, and potentially wrong, divinings of a patent examiner. Apple often pulled sentences, usually out of context, from comments made by the patent examiners, even if those same comments were later cleared up or modified by the ensuing re-filing of patents and back-and-forth between Burst and the examiner. It seems hokey to me, but I am admittedly a neophyte.

13. Apple argued hard to exclude playlists as an edited work. I didn't understand this other than the idea that Apple is trying really hard to exclude iPods from the scope of infringing products. Just a guess.

14. As burstingsquidoo mentioned, Judge Patel mentioned that she hadn't even read the Summary Judgement filings.