Frankly, we’d love to forget all about patent firm but mass amnesia is sadly not yet a legal option. Apple on Monday reiterated its desire to intervene in the Texas district court case, replying to and asking for a hearing on the matter.

FOSS Patent’s Florian Mueller does an excellent job of , which he believes makes short work of all of Lodsys’s objections. Among those were Lodsys’s argument that Apple’s interest in the case was purely “economic,” to which Apple points out that the fact that it holds a license for the technology at the heart of the case would be sufficient unto itself. And though Lodsys’s had tried to counter Apple’s argument that the defendants were small companies by , Apple maintains that none of those companies have neither innate knowledge of the Apple-provided technology at issue, nor of the terms of the license that, just as a reminder, Apple .

But my favorite counter-argument is when Apple argues that Lodsys can’t consider its motion to intervene “untimely” because it’s too . Unless, of course, Lodsys is alleging that Apple has a time machine.

By my count, we’re just one pony short of a full-fledged dog-and-pony show.