montana but the reply brief somewhat gave the impression that dakota arms had made some payments and that's not correct so no payments were made no royalty payments were made in montana and i did want to correct that right away were there any actual shipments of rifles from south dakota if you might think there were actual shipments with rifles from south dakota to montana accepted by little sharks additionally coat of arms build little sharps and  voice them in montana on numerous occasions further coat of arms so let's to test montana persons to buy that particular gun issue and sent solicitations into the state of montana in montana in the unfair trade practices action excuse me in the in the trade secrets action because what they did was that the guns including the trade secrets were sold in montana to much chance actually under the t metalwork case i believe that just the shipment of products and the contract to have it produced for little sharks whether it be in south dakota or in the case of the latches i believe that's manufactured for and tried in montana and he was brokering then he later moved to montana i believe in iowa and i hope it's conserved if i'm correct i might have the states wrong and the montana supreme court held that on the contract that the shipment of the parts into the state of montana contracting for parks to be brought into montana was enough under subsection eighty and i believe in although i'm not sure of that too i can for a long mil that wasn't the shipment for under the contractor this you fear you are that was a part of our argument for general jurisdiction still trying to get a handle on how how big a volume of sales are we talking about it it sounded to me from reading your briefs like we were strong i would love to respond any questions you might have first otherwise i would like to address the eighteen metal case which just you didn't have a chance to read came out about a month after to decide in case we believe that that does not provide a basis for specific jurisdiction here it is true that this statute is narrower than many states that use the bt i think case is a good   found only that it was doing business refused to decide whether the other portions of the specific arm of the long arm jurisdiction statute applied and under the doing  business arm if you would found out that it took years of shipping these latches to defense manufacturer on reservation it took them as specific negotiation corporation first shipped things then they contacted the montana buyer and after having contacted the montana buyer then entered into entered into a contract to ship the but it seems to me that that's a that would be an independent and perfectly understandable ground for jurisdiction because it's interference with a contract between two montana  of ailments and judge honestly did not go into that end of the calculus because bt hadn't been decided beforehand because we submit without any it absolutely no reason to even go beyond where she did there is no reason why this court on review can't make that finding itself we suggest that you can decide otherwise in our brief but there's no reason why you can't corporation manufacturing its firearms in south dakota it has allegedly converted to its own use some trade secrets and intellectual property in south dakota and the a close look at the at the other montana supreme court decisions under this very unique long arm statute shows that the argument that  example proceeds were to be sent into montana is unavailing i would specifically refer the court to the bird versus heller case which is often cited in by the montana courts which is a good illustration in that case you'll recall the  idaho lawyer was hired to represent the montana people and converted the settlement checks was the allegation kept up and one of the grounds for montana jurisdiction they should have been paid to montana people had no bearing on the decision on jurisdiction and i understood your opposing counsel position he was essentially arguing that the thrust of his claim is breach of what troubles me is the question is what contract are we talking about are we talking about a contract to manufacture and ship rifles or are we talking about the torrent of misappropriation of some sort of trade secret or whatever the intellectual property rights would be that the essence is this was their idea and that that they took they went to south dakota took the plans and specifications and their idea and that after an initial recognition of that yeah and then he did the and of course we're at the pleading stage where at this stage we take the allegations of the complaint has pl but there's certainly no evidence of any written contract and the actual contract itself as alleged is a moving target throughout the complaint and it's certainly a moving target throughout these proceedings but the essence of the lawsuit is that these people took their idea and went to south dakota with it and it was kept and being used for somebody else's profit and their do the damages claim so that do not agree that that it is a contract action and most of the most of the damages that they're seeking from the prayer of the complaint you'll notice are specifically excluded montana long contract damages and so the contract action wouldn't do them very good i believe i've used my time less heart has any further questions thank you very much  royalties what clearly you have a claim for unpaid royalties but but your answer to my question was that the thrust of my case is the breach of contract action and i'm trying to figure out what contract are we talking about we're talking about the contract maybe tween a little shorts and armstrong one manufacture the rifles two to ship them to decode arms for purchase at forty percent below the price that isn't the real the real essence of your case here they stole our idea to purchase a miniature version of the sharps model eight hundred seventy four rifle and as a result of their wrongful appropriation of our planes they owe us royalties and damages for are all the money that we would have made had they honored that agreement well mr appropriation of trade secrets has now which is also but i would more characterize the royalty payment as an agreement between don allen and little sharps they agreed that a royalty would be paid but i guess it depends on how you characterize it wouldn't it be it would be we agreed to adopt these things and make an eighty percent scale version of the rifle part of our lawsuit and i think an intricate part is that the parties agreed to a payment of a royalty after the first one hundred measure of damages is it not but it's also a preacher it's also a breach of the contract itself not to pay the royalt provided for the payment of royalties into a bank account in south dakota or someplace other than montana so i'm sure your theory because they were going to tend to check the mail to check into montana that alone and failure to do that alone would be sufficient to give you in montana is that right well that's that's probably i don't take the same view of the statute being as narrow as the court by the way because it was more for other cases and i think bt soley was on