This is the battle field:

• Data Compression versus Time Compression and Time Compression Multiplexing (TCM)
• "Prior Art" -- Haskell and Izeki patents
• Transmission
• Means plus Function Limitations, Section 112 (6)

One week to bone up on these arguments, then ... IT'S WAR!

Postscript:

BurstingSquidoo wrote that "It was as if Powers had some time to fill and he did this by just presenting the Apple brief in an oral presentation." I agree, and would go further and say it would appear he did not really want to be doing an "expert presentation," since that is not exactly his forte. But knowing that the Burst expert would be presenting first, and nearly 99% certain she would do her usual thorough review of the technology, he could "skate by" the basic technological presentation, and use his time slot for a back-handed slap at Burst (despite the ground rules that the tutorial be educational, not argumentative.) I think he accomplished the former (didn't have to embarrass himself, or his more knowledgeable "expert" witness), but he did not accomplish the latter. He did not advance his cause with the judge by the sarcasm and almost bullet-point presentation of some of the technology and patents that will be in the Apple argument on Thursday. By that date this cursory review of the "Apple technology" will have been forgotten, as the two sides "exchange views" on these points in earnest, with argument, counter-argument, rebuttal, and rebuttal. What WILL be remember by J. Patel was the fact that he "skated through" his time, misused it, presented little value to the judge's technical instruction, and failed to even reveal the quality of Apple's "expertise" in this case, which after all, IS REALLY ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. I don't believe J. Patel will forget this "Tutorial."

By her request, the two "experts" will be required to be back in court on the 8th. I would EXPECT that J. Patel will use that opportunity to drill down to the essentials of the various technological issues, and ask probing questions of not only the lawyers, but also the "experts" themselves! I would think that in her many years as a justice, she has seen many a lawyer play fast and loose with the truth, technologically or otherwise, talk fast, and use a lot of bombast to cover the fact that its case is built on quicksand.

Finally, I must say this. As most of you know, I am an Apple "fanatic!" Very heavily invested in Apple stock -- continuously since 1993. I wouldn't own another brand of computer, but the Macintosh. Apple, for me, has always represented "the guys in the white hats," as contrasted with the Evil Empire. As an Apple stockholder, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that those working for Apple act in a manner that does not damage the Apple image. Of course, I would expect that an outside law firm hired by Apple would aggressively defend Apple. But it should do so in a way that does not reflect badly on Apple itself. I am sorry to say, but from what I have read in the Apple briefs, and the performance of Matthew Powers in the courtroom, and the deceitful tactics used in this case so far, I am surprised, disappointed, and even shocked. I will even go out on a limb and say that when Don Rosenberg and Steve Jobs get briefed on this case (hopefully fully briefed by the Apple legal department, and possibly Mr. Rosenberg himself) they will be similarly shocked at the way this case has been handled by Messrs. Powers and Brown.