We're going to our stadium. I always answer. I always appear around the area. And I'm glad there's been some time to sit. I'll open the door. Five minutes. Five minutes. Okay. Let me ask you a question. Sure. What's your name? Should we adopt the Is it Zool? I have a question. You know? When is the case coming? We're planning about planning. We're going to hear from our professor. We're planning an express repudiation center for the injury that spots the limitations spot for the copyrighted admission plan. I think it's true that I'm thinking we're going to get there. That would have. That would have. That would have. And the truth is, you know, I'm not just a case of the law. I'm going to get the piano case first impression. The third circuit might get a P. I might get the piano. The other circuits that dealt with that. They have. And they're used for a way to deal with this. But the problem is, is that the Joe Tron judge is in a very fun little pair. And he adopted a moving on for a long work. There is no discreet today that my client sued for a declaratory judgment that he is deemed to have offered something of a creative look called the NLCID
. Did you? That's really a joint work. What's the most difficult? You know, I'm quite sure. I mean, I do it with my friends. I see that he was there. That he listened to you and he was not the Joe Tron or for a BDSM. I mean, it's a balance with the only nature that is about. And what's really just a thought of what the jury had been changing theory and what's kind of a mosh about the time you're in the district, what you do. So that's conceited now. I mean, he was not the Joe Tron or for the, that she used his computer programs as examples all the way. And this conceited now is the Joe Tron author of the NLCID. Which is a work protect of the cover of both the site and the site. It goes back to the, we've asked and I take the corporate responses that it's with the elections to head and part your subject judgment in favor of my client. I mean, so the issue of my building that he is the joint author of the essay. So that's conceited. It's conceited now. It's made up of a can. It's conceited. He's a co-author of the NLCID. Maybe it's accounting by happens. But is that a statement? That's a statement to your administration. So when it was subject, that would do a stick-shut in the federal court. Is that before this left is in account in the profits of the money on the NLCID? Who knows? What is the left thing that just record to do a review? There is a chemical that the district judge might be within, within reason to say there was nothing left. That falls within the copyright jurisdiction of the court. I'm going to dismiss it. I assume the state court can't force you to do that. I'm not in that. So you go through this
. You have a caraclyne. In worse, the defense in case of a caraclyne. It's a cancellation of about two or just three registrations that my client has. What I have to court will want to retain the case for that purpose. It is a little unclear. There's a caraclyne in this. There's a caraclyne in this. I'm sorry. Is it here or is it this? Not me. I don't know about my clients. The first KVP was on the judgment on the theory of the end of the review. He went to some of the authority and he saw it as a weaponry that had been on the S&D. But the weaponry had been on the EDS. That's correct. So that was just confusion. Yes, do I help? And then we were most... From what perspective on the cancellation? I think you have to. I don't think any of the question of running out of the district are generally the cancellation of the caraclyne. It was one that's kind of up in the air. But those chords that have considered it, they'll have it. And from five or six centuries ago, they were part of it. And just do not do that. You don't even make the final deflection. Right. Right
. The other thing is that we had to do... These are the factors that really mean the... You know, the person from the location of the city is something that causes the very soon we had car now. What the judge ruled on was not within car now. It was specifically reserved to the sacred Geoffrey. I think there was an issue with actually a piece of it by the... by the... by the intact. Which was the kind of thing that was seeking the relief. I just think it was deadlock. And I can spend about 15 minutes going through. I think that that was appropriate. But, you know, the fun rule of Schultinger is that the chords should send back. We should be judgment on liability. But we have to deal with the issue of the 13th. Well, that's true. So..
. Yes. And, you know, it is... It's a very simple thing. It's hard to do. We don't even have to get into a sudden agreement and wrongly... a car that this... I mean, if we say... The district of the world, we found that the direct... it was a direct, direct, direct, direct headset. And so, we have to vacate the grant of some of the... the organic one, seeking cancellation. I think it didn't wrongs that... we were
... we were... we were supposed to... stay completely safe. I think that we... we get to be sure that the counterclinics may be less appropriate to your distinction. Because the original claim... the jurisdiction has gone to the original claim... the surviving counterclinics probably will be elected... the federal jurisdiction. And let me answer that question off the top of my head. But..
. But... I'm sorry, there's much left in this... There's... without... pre-judging... we'll see... we'll see... I mean, the evidence can seem here... is cover over a lot. And the only thing that's left on this too.
.. is to send the counterclinics back into clear and state. And what's the remedy here for him? The remedy seems to be just... stick up, counting the profit... is the equal profit. And the problem is... part of the case, the worst part of case was... the first one we had about the defendant. So, we had a trial, we were looking one thing, and then there was another. So, what he keeps saying is, the case is a big surprise. It's a big surprise, right? I don't know. It's a surprise. That's why I feel like that. That's why I feel like that. That's why I feel like that. You say, and he's saying, the witness, that witness, his testimony, and trial, she went through the cop, in 1996, and included... Brown's students, programs, and the second registration, holdings, but this was a big surprise
. The case for two years, I mean, they didn't move it from my perspective. They had no trial castle, whether you're talking about... Look, the Brown's student testified that he knew... she knew that the witness he claimed in a position as a program for his programs or really examples. She said that her deposition was a close-up discovery. That was a trial order, and I can state that, what someone says in deposition, can look at the test of actual trial can, between different things entirely. I love that the deposition circumstances seem to be prepared to deal with things in the motions and pre-drug orders, such as they exist. I really, when I said, surprise, maybe that's me, I did not think that she was going to. It didn't change the landscape of the litigation. It's what the industrial, landscape litigation doctrine that I'm aware of, I'm here for you, and I'm going to... I'm going to take a name, because I said, well, it will be more than two, but it will be more than two motions. I think the name is already for me, but I said, what's left of this place? What's left of this place? So we want to start being out of the world, it means that there are very bad actual issues that are taken from there, because at least we're taking over some of the preparations and the versions are going to end. You know, you get into questions of whether the number should be and how it should be determined, but I think at the end of the day, those are issues that experts will decide whether it's a federal court or a state court and that will be up to the district council and that actually wants to continue to exercise jurisdiction. It's such a shame. We, these people, walk together for a few years, wasn't it? Yeah. I'm never afraid. I miss the fence for three. I'm never afraid. Yeah. I'm never going to try to put them together, make a settlement, ultimately. No
. I mean, look at the end of the day, it's something that we've been off of control of the company. Those are very expensive, difficult, and expensive. I mean, you know what to do? I mean, you know what to do? You know what to do? That's a bomb. Bayon, this is a million. This is billions. This is billions. This is billions. It is a business. Successful. It's a very successful, valuable technology. And the company has done quite well for itself, for the owners. And frankly, they, you know, there was a big battle over who was going to be charged with a company who could talk with them. Was that what the pipe was? That was what the state court kissed us about. There was. Well, she was the person in the clock, right? She was the president. He was the secretary of treasurer's article. And then tabled half of the federal defense meeting tech. Was NASA still on air? Yes. As far as I know, I mean, the case has been over for two years or so. As far as I know, they are there. They are operating here doing fairly well. And you know, how the message is, it's chained out. It's a little off, you know, still up in the air. I think Trev's just on it. We'll have to make some decisions about that. But I mean, entirely with the court, the building is nothing but the funding solutions of the, the building pyro and hybrid things could be used to look at the federal defense. You can
. Yes, your hafo? Oh, yes. It's going to be fine. I'm Tom Howard, I am the attorney for the Defense Averies, Teal and Zee and ethnic technologies. If I could, I'd rather begin with my preparatory and I would respond to Judge Barry's question. Which is in the heart of the books in front of us. Yes, which is what all this left is a synchord proceeding, or I guess could be a district court proceeding involving royalties. Can you deny that bouncing ends with copyright and the LCID? Absolutely, part. Absolutely. There's no copyright registration, so we're talking about John Howard's general office. You can see what all this. I can see that they've been providing with this LCD, which was never, ever, redefined at the job. And the reason was going back to the landscape or sea change, because it was not raised in the way that Council had wishes to raise it. It was raised as this is a lawsuit go for two copyright registrations, and Brownstein, in fact, tested by the trial, but he believed, and he saw him as planning joint authorship. He believed he've considered joint authorship of the LCID. He has been called the LCID. I am in the court court. You're walking, do I? I'm going to hear you. I'll explain why I disagree. And the reason is, as Mr. Brownstein testified, the product which is happening in the script, which is sometimes referred to as the LCID that I'm sure he has changed. It's no longer the program, so you know. He has underrated works that were done by other people, doing works in 14 years that they were given, and that was never adequately defined. And this was twice K's claim that there was some kind of joint authorship. So you mean the change was an adequately defined extract? Well, let's assume that for a moment, if the change was adequately defined, wouldn't that ignore it is benefit? Well, if I was only a very efficient artist, it's a lot different. We got the root of works of art. So if you, of course, because we didn't define that well at trial, then that would mean that it would be the prior view of the LCID, which would prevail, which would be, that has been suggested, but there are co-authors in it, because you were valid. Brownstein testified at trial, that he was claiming co-authorship of the EDS. He said that the only person in the EDS, look, that isn't a post-culture review, this was a mess. We're just going to back a line, until it was completely, completely the colors of the EDS, and finally, just before I went to the jewelry, he tried to go back and say, he tried to change it to the LCID, because he realized now, we should have realized earlier, he did, that he was not co-authored of the EDS. So I said, it was nothing left of that. And then we tried. So it's 11 years later. He said to that, well, let's make sure that he agrees with the area. Well, the problem is, the theater of steel is seeking to obtain judgment on the proofs that they filed. Now, if I understand your honor, just say, you're saying you're the court of poverty, that the end is the end. And since complaint to go to the EDS in that way. Okay. The bottom of the end, Tom, I'm not the road, but you know, really he has to go to the EDS. And he can sense his manager, I'm not saying that he has to. Well, then this is taking a different posture than the three other things. That was one of the two. Okay. That's not the argument. And I'm trying very hard to understand the argument as presented. That's not the argument as I just put it on the sub-key. He stopped the plot with what he did at trial, which was, really was close under the end of the EDS. Right back to that. The EDS. And then he tried to change it just before, you know, it would have had to go to the jury on a trial, or the claim that was never, never the complaint, but he tried to change it to. And we should be, we should have to go to the jury. Richard, they've understood all of the sub-key. And they've already had the sub-key in EDS. And he tries to switch it just before it goes to the jury. And once that to go to the jury too, they have the evidence
. He said that the only person in the EDS, look, that isn't a post-culture review, this was a mess. We're just going to back a line, until it was completely, completely the colors of the EDS, and finally, just before I went to the jewelry, he tried to go back and say, he tried to change it to the LCID, because he realized now, we should have realized earlier, he did, that he was not co-authored of the EDS. So I said, it was nothing left of that. And then we tried. So it's 11 years later. He said to that, well, let's make sure that he agrees with the area. Well, the problem is, the theater of steel is seeking to obtain judgment on the proofs that they filed. Now, if I understand your honor, just say, you're saying you're the court of poverty, that the end is the end. And since complaint to go to the EDS in that way. Okay. The bottom of the end, Tom, I'm not the road, but you know, really he has to go to the EDS. And he can sense his manager, I'm not saying that he has to. Well, then this is taking a different posture than the three other things. That was one of the two. Okay. That's not the argument. And I'm trying very hard to understand the argument as presented. That's not the argument as I just put it on the sub-key. He stopped the plot with what he did at trial, which was, really was close under the end of the EDS. Right back to that. The EDS. And then he tried to change it just before, you know, it would have had to go to the jury on a trial, or the claim that was never, never the complaint, but he tried to change it to. And we should be, we should have to go to the jury. Richard, they've understood all of the sub-key. And they've already had the sub-key in EDS. And he tries to switch it just before it goes to the jury. And once that to go to the jury too, they have the evidence. And he hadn't prevented his complaint. Then this court, are you fighting the same amount? The firm. The firm. And as you put it on the shift, of course, is what I'm working for. But then we move to the counter, like I'm moving to that end. And we also deal with the characterization of it as only a lower court to show our world peace. Because while the Navy had been a Joan Lawership contribution in the programs for Ronsing and I don't discreet that, which it occurred that in 1994, 1996, there are all kinds of defenses that still find it. Some of which are modeling before this court, such as the sensual limitations of that, because he is the serving. How come I have to reach that? Well, you're absolutely right. The court does not, and she is still kind. You're going to take that for this court not to do that. However, that means we've got to go through all the things all over again in the state court. Maybe this will move out. First you have to go back to the district court and see what's left. Perhaps. Well, and we could really take this new issue all over again, I have said. So let me move to the counter, since I see what the drift of the court on that end. Just move. She is not the court. She is a member of the district court. Yes. She is not a member of the district court. She is not a member of the district court. And you are not like me. Well, don't let me get in the middle of the mud. I'm not like that today. Okay
. And he hadn't prevented his complaint. Then this court, are you fighting the same amount? The firm. The firm. And as you put it on the shift, of course, is what I'm working for. But then we move to the counter, like I'm moving to that end. And we also deal with the characterization of it as only a lower court to show our world peace. Because while the Navy had been a Joan Lawership contribution in the programs for Ronsing and I don't discreet that, which it occurred that in 1994, 1996, there are all kinds of defenses that still find it. Some of which are modeling before this court, such as the sensual limitations of that, because he is the serving. How come I have to reach that? Well, you're absolutely right. The court does not, and she is still kind. You're going to take that for this court not to do that. However, that means we've got to go through all the things all over again in the state court. Maybe this will move out. First you have to go back to the district court and see what's left. Perhaps. Well, and we could really take this new issue all over again, I have said. So let me move to the counter, since I see what the drift of the court on that end. Just move. She is not the court. She is a member of the district court. Yes. She is not a member of the district court. She is not a member of the district court. And you are not like me. Well, don't let me get in the middle of the mud. I'm not like that today. Okay. And please, I'm really going to be a natural man to stand when you guys are going to push out. No, I can tell you that she thinks that she doesn't have to raise the taxes or the protections. Yeah, but that's not really bad. That's not really a good question. So, as you can see, as put to the side, LCID, I'm not clear. I thought you were not conceiting that their color is on LCID. I am conceiting the brown scene, main contribution with the long-lived programs back in 1994 to 1996 or so. I'm not conceiting now, but I'm telling you that we are currently referring to the LCID. In fact, she's work, and then is what I said was not the ultimate trial, and then is what she had a burden of developing. What is it? I raised papers on this again. I can't figure out if we were to define, if we were to put a description rather than just a label. What it is, E-clans, is his work now that is currently used to it now, but when he filed a complaint, what he filed with you, I mean there'd be a concession that at least the LCID at the time, whatever it is, and he was the color of the lab. You know, one of the considerations there is that it happened over the last few years. I don't know what I said now. I was really referring to 2009, which is what it was like to say, a lot of people have approved it. That's fine, but that's not the case. That was... That old process, the derivation process, to which he testified, took place before the African hum game 2010. So, when this LCID was developed, when it was made the product was 1997, there was a lot of work over the dam, and a lot of changes to it. But let me talk to you about that time period. You were not talking about it as you just said now. She had the rules, and he had the rules of completely organizing for those rules. So, next to me, I'm maybe looking at it to separate. You know, I really said that.
. And please, I'm really going to be a natural man to stand when you guys are going to push out. No, I can tell you that she thinks that she doesn't have to raise the taxes or the protections. Yeah, but that's not really bad. That's not really a good question. So, as you can see, as put to the side, LCID, I'm not clear. I thought you were not conceiting that their color is on LCID. I am conceiting the brown scene, main contribution with the long-lived programs back in 1994 to 1996 or so. I'm not conceiting now, but I'm telling you that we are currently referring to the LCID. In fact, she's work, and then is what I said was not the ultimate trial, and then is what she had a burden of developing. What is it? I raised papers on this again. I can't figure out if we were to define, if we were to put a description rather than just a label. What it is, E-clans, is his work now that is currently used to it now, but when he filed a complaint, what he filed with you, I mean there'd be a concession that at least the LCID at the time, whatever it is, and he was the color of the lab. You know, one of the considerations there is that it happened over the last few years. I don't know what I said now. I was really referring to 2009, which is what it was like to say, a lot of people have approved it. That's fine, but that's not the case. That was... That old process, the derivation process, to which he testified, took place before the African hum game 2010. So, when this LCID was developed, when it was made the product was 1997, there was a lot of work over the dam, and a lot of changes to it. But let me talk to you about that time period. You were not talking about it as you just said now. She had the rules, and he had the rules of completely organizing for those rules. So, next to me, I'm maybe looking at it to separate. You know, I really said that... That is right, 49. This is what, 2013, I'm sure there's a lot of work to do. He added the new things that he claims are his. Well, he added, and also there are people who were for me to add. I added, I was testimony and the trial transcript, that many people were compasses. He said, major changes were made to this. It's not the same. So, that's his trial testimony. But the main thing is, you can see that it goes back only to determine what's left of PLC. I agree. Well, exceptionally. Except that we can have that. This is something that we've got back to in accounting of profits as to that we want to keep what you're responsible. I mean, it's a joint problem. It's only to a certain point that the pilot is down to the pilot. Well, the pilot is going to make his occupant. But yet, it's not nearly a calendar. First of all, he has to prove that he's entitled to anything. The documents established will still contend that this is all property that you assign transfer to ETAQ, transfer it in 2000 and 1997, and both occasions. I, and he will be a consultant. So, he had energy, so we're not just jumping through accounting, he's got a good ride going. Do you represent ETAQ, finally? I'm sorry? Who represents ETAQ? I represent ETAQ. ETAQ, every technology is the same company. ETAQ is just a short image. What are the profits before the 1997 assignments? As I'm.
.. That is right, 49. This is what, 2013, I'm sure there's a lot of work to do. He added the new things that he claims are his. Well, he added, and also there are people who were for me to add. I added, I was testimony and the trial transcript, that many people were compasses. He said, major changes were made to this. It's not the same. So, that's his trial testimony. But the main thing is, you can see that it goes back only to determine what's left of PLC. I agree. Well, exceptionally. Except that we can have that. This is something that we've got back to in accounting of profits as to that we want to keep what you're responsible. I mean, it's a joint problem. It's only to a certain point that the pilot is down to the pilot. Well, the pilot is going to make his occupant. But yet, it's not nearly a calendar. First of all, he has to prove that he's entitled to anything. The documents established will still contend that this is all property that you assign transfer to ETAQ, transfer it in 2000 and 1997, and both occasions. I, and he will be a consultant. So, he had energy, so we're not just jumping through accounting, he's got a good ride going. Do you represent ETAQ, finally? I'm sorry? Who represents ETAQ? I represent ETAQ. ETAQ, every technology is the same company. ETAQ is just a short image. What are the profits before the 1997 assignments? As I'm... I believe that this is not a record, but there are little profits for him. That's the kind of... Well, when you're still going to get into... Perhaps, perhaps... It's not like this happened to come. What period of time do you concede... Good. Joint authorship. 97. Whether or not the profits. Well, that's when you have a merger with CMR, Consumer Smart Taker Search. And that's where you have the assignment. In an early-to-transfer, but it is the CHIRO-relicence of all the clients he didn't know about it. But that was earlier in that same year. So you will go back to 97. And then after that, you have a joint enterprise where all the assets are given to the common company. And I'm going to leave a document second from. It's not sure whether he knew it or didn't know it really because that she acted in a manner that was consistent with core authorship
.. I believe that this is not a record, but there are little profits for him. That's the kind of... Well, when you're still going to get into... Perhaps, perhaps... It's not like this happened to come. What period of time do you concede... Good. Joint authorship. 97. Whether or not the profits. Well, that's when you have a merger with CMR, Consumer Smart Taker Search. And that's where you have the assignment. In an early-to-transfer, but it is the CHIRO-relicence of all the clients he didn't know about it. But that was earlier in that same year. So you will go back to 97. And then after that, you have a joint enterprise where all the assets are given to the common company. And I'm going to leave a document second from. It's not sure whether he knew it or didn't know it really because that she acted in a manner that was consistent with core authorship. That was my point of the sexual limitations here, aren't it? That there was throughout this, a plain and expressed recognition of the universal ownership of this, of the programs they need. Every single document confronts and transfers to the corporate enterprise. And inside the license agreement, some cheeking fund that the corporate enterprise own the programs, as well as the copyrights. So you can get both the EES and the LCIP as being all the money cash systems. In fact, the LCIP will also announce the cash system and then own money cash. So you have this complete history that is inconsistent with his claim now. A certain 14 years after he first stopped to get the current. That's where the sexual limitation comes in. That's why it applies whenever we're talking about it. This is the service that's hurting joint ownership client. If I'm writing it lastly on the counterclim that, which I haven't touched yet, I'm fully... I can't see that the corporate got a bomb on the counterclim. I cannot see that. What if they were doing the project fund? They were writing it on the directory of the judge found that the... The file you fake claim is entitled to recover on which we're not calling the EES. It was Navi Naviak's... An mechanical he found that found the LCIP claim. They're not divert. You first do it in reverse. Yes, yes? There. He didn't use the LCIP
. That was my point of the sexual limitations here, aren't it? That there was throughout this, a plain and expressed recognition of the universal ownership of this, of the programs they need. Every single document confronts and transfers to the corporate enterprise. And inside the license agreement, some cheeking fund that the corporate enterprise own the programs, as well as the copyrights. So you can get both the EES and the LCIP as being all the money cash systems. In fact, the LCIP will also announce the cash system and then own money cash. So you have this complete history that is inconsistent with his claim now. A certain 14 years after he first stopped to get the current. That's where the sexual limitation comes in. That's why it applies whenever we're talking about it. This is the service that's hurting joint ownership client. If I'm writing it lastly on the counterclim that, which I haven't touched yet, I'm fully... I can't see that the corporate got a bomb on the counterclim. I cannot see that. What if they were doing the project fund? They were writing it on the directory of the judge found that the... The file you fake claim is entitled to recover on which we're not calling the EES. It was Navi Naviak's... An mechanical he found that found the LCIP claim. They're not divert. You first do it in reverse. Yes, yes? There. He didn't use the LCIP. What he found was that the settlement agreement by which all of us left there was a colloquial between Mr. McGinnells and Judge Fizzano in which the judge said, so what you're telling me is that it's not copyrighted. All you have is an item of personal property. And all the personal property was assigned back to... You just said what was it? Picking or the reset? That was in the argument and that's what then the judge's decision. But it's nothing left for just your brown skin to claim use. And that was what other than what you just said in the lawsuit. And all you said in the lawsuit was that what did the judge say in the opinion and the opinion and audit that you decided on the directive verdict? He decided that the EES... ...then Mr. Brownstein had failed on our primary fishing case to show that the EES gave us a joint... ...product of joint law enforcement. And that's what he said. That's it. You're right. I'm using it
. What he found was that the settlement agreement by which all of us left there was a colloquial between Mr. McGinnells and Judge Fizzano in which the judge said, so what you're telling me is that it's not copyrighted. All you have is an item of personal property. And all the personal property was assigned back to... You just said what was it? Picking or the reset? That was in the argument and that's what then the judge's decision. But it's nothing left for just your brown skin to claim use. And that was what other than what you just said in the lawsuit. And all you said in the lawsuit was that what did the judge say in the opinion and the opinion and audit that you decided on the directive verdict? He decided that the EES... ...then Mr. Brownstein had failed on our primary fishing case to show that the EES gave us a joint... ...product of joint law enforcement. And that's what he said. That's it. You're right. I'm using it. I'm using it. This is what I lost, but this time I'm not a liar. I just had to find it. I'm sorry that the other court should be fined. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry
. I'm using it. This is what I lost, but this time I'm not a liar. I just had to find it. I'm sorry that the other court should be fined. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. She said, don't she say that. That was justice and example. She said, she said, she said that. She said, she said that. She said, she said that. She said, she said. She said that. Whether or not there's anything that survives, we always claim the OCD now that the issue that you do want to finish that sentence. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We always have to say, sorry to have an interest as co-op, in a commercial part of that's what we care care about. We got messed up, it can also be the 20 years, the end basically took the position, you may have owned it, but unfortunately you're too late because the team was in register with 1996 and afforded their time mark, they turned out that all of that, that each, that went on through the tree was a litigation, became rude, when she testified to trial on the positions and they did it, that's what we said today. And the work, but the concrete work is created and fixed at one time. There's a doubt that there have been changes and we're quite participating in them. The issue of what survives and what is a reasonable worth is one that we have to be dealt with. I can tell you that among the bummer, the issues that were created by Mr. Brown's team, I really still continue to, organization of the data conversion of what we call human rule, that into machine rule, that there are aspects of it that survive in their aspects that have been changed. Mr. Brown's team has worked as a creator, this co-offer of the work. From each, from each of the other, I was a derived, taking compensated for the continued use of the work on the cheese co-offer. The amount is something we have certainly not gotten to. The sign of the issue, there was a merger, which I think it's a crisis as a purchasing and revising is never a sign in the work. Exhibition, document, the demonstrate that this intent did invest himself up in the works. If that's an issue that remains, we'll have to deal with it. We're here because of count one, of what we saw
. And the judges having made the state think it a rule based on and this teeter of all of the six programs most together, frankly, my answer is just on the same thing. The programs that were derived subsequently to the SCID, I have the SCID, they are the required group. It's a hardware extension to find them as being interpened works. So he seems to be sure on the subsequent document, five years later, that says, oh, you know, we now, we have a tech we on the tribal license and the SCID is a bit of a true, but it's not a derogation as well as the common author to give them a proper choice to rise. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. You can't let's say for a long brief while the arguments are in place, we'll continue to have an advisement. Thank you, buddy