FORTUNE -- Apple (AAPL) for several years has had a loyal supporter in Florian Mueller.
Nobody followed the company's myriad patent disputes more closely. Or criticized more sharply the claims made against Apple by Samsung and Motorola/Google for their so-called standard-essential patents.
But this time, he writes in his FOSS Patents blog, Apple has gone too far.
Having read the transcript of a January federal court hearing in advance of the second Apple v. Samsung trial -- scheduled to begin Mar. 31 -- Mueller is practically apoplectic. He can't believe 1) what Apple is demanding and 2) that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is going to let the company put those demands before a jury.
"I face the first situation," he wrote in Tuesday's post, "in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind."
The issue is what Apple thinks Samsung might reasonably agree to pay -- after hypothetical negotiations -- for the right to use five Apple patents: phone number tapping, unified search, data synchronization, slide-to-unlock, and autocomplete. (More detail here.)
$40 per unit? For five software patents?
"Give me a break," writes Mueller. "Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this."
In the first California Apple v. Samsung trial -- the one that ended in a $929 million verdict against Samsung -- Apple's per-device ask was a fraction of what it's demanding now. The per-unit claim for "pinch to zoom" was $3.10. For "over scroll bounce" and "tap to zoom" it was $2.02 apiece. That's a total to $7.14 for three patents. Now Apple is demanding $40 for five.
"I can understand that Apple, almost three years after having filed its first lawsuit against Samsung, is disappointed with the fact that it has no enforceable remedies in place in the United States," Mueller writes. "But seeking out-of-this-world damages based on bizarre theories of what a hypothetical negotiation would result in is not the answer."
Three cases in three venues, but the one in the Federal Appeals Court mattered most.
FORTUNE -- Friday was a busy day for Apple (AAPL) legal.
In a District Court in New York, the judge who found Apple liable for antitrust violations in the e-book price fixing case denied -- unsurprisingly, given her past rulings -- Apple's petition to suspend consideration of remedies and penalties until its appeal of her decision could MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Aug 10, 2013 7:39 AM ET
Someone with an axe to grind has been messing with Lucy Koh's page
FORTUNE -- At 8:07 p.m. Friday a Wikipedia user identified only by his or her IP address -- 18.104.22.168 -- added the following paragraph to the Wikipedia entry for Judge Lucy H. Koh, who oversaw the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial last August:
It has been discussed extensively in the Technology Community whether or not Lucy Koh has MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Dec 23, 2012 7:34 AM ET
|Internet giant Sina caught in China porn crackdown|
|Don't assume you're safe from Heartbleed|
|Russia stocks fall as Ukraine crisis intensifies|
|Water becoming more valuable than gold|
|Will 7 Apples a day keep the bears away? - The Buzz|