wasn't license because of the capability existed why does a specification go through this to great lengths to define network proximity because that's not a term that is used in any other times nor is it a term of art as i can tell that was used in the whether an initially filed or issued in any parent applications that went to the subject of the network proximity namely choosing which server to go to where you have more than one possible server and you're trying to figure out which one to go to on the basis of some notion of proximity or arc will claims always about a different topic once you know what server you make no sense when you're from you're talking about the problem of we know which server we want to go to we're trying to figure out what path is a comparison of different servers instead should have said at least one of those three things has to be part of the proximity calculation that doesn't change the summary judgment result because the only proximity it only aspect of silly and for example real claim to these having difficulty understanding that says you agree they're not the same you suggest there's overlap i don't know how looking at the definition of network proximity really helps definition was in the parent which only disclosed a local server load balancing the senator to patent comes from a continuation of party applications which added new subject matter with respect to the other thing about this clem claiming we need to keep in mind the proselytes ratings are for routes you are rating routes so something like server processing capacity is not even airy route based measure and the fastest leg measurement which of course referring to is not a route based measurement the fastest leg measurement is equivalent to determining how many people are trying to get on an on  intersect on the interstate it is not a measure of how long a route that begins at that intersection to do some destination will take or how many intersections there are on the way hops is equivalent claims the court said all of those products no matter what is turned on in fact are infringing because that has a pretty broad capability terms and then the court said but what damages you would get of it chose to get a license later it might be appropriate ever reasonable royalty i don't think i think your characterization of that there is outrageous not correct but that's not the same thing as saying that was the experts theory m like only license because down the road that user might want to head right have thought i might add the other functionality so that i can actually do this link lo balancing but he never did that he never sat here is my royalty rate for a currently no functional l t m license and if you didn't say it before he snuck in to be able to do it for the first guy the trial and hence the assumptions of his royalty calculation are no longer accurate and he doesn't have a royalty theory and maybe even you do have a box that has code in it that could practice the patent functionality to get access to that code you have the license to early controller and you pay pay for that and and if you pay for that that moves because the kind constructions don't require you whether they were paid whether they were in my view there's undisputed testimony that they're capable of being used to do the good ousting the question might be whether they were ever activation code and doing whatever this patch thing is that you say was necessary in order to do at least the second half expects best and it's a good question distinction here between fantasy sports of engine where it was within the control of the customer activate the call to get the license but here it's not within the control of the customer because that license is not that question is directed to what we're talking about we're talking about the theory that before the priority that these two things were separate but the jury instruction or the fact that one device could mean two different modules in the same rack even if he did it literally to mean that it was in one package so that's what he didn't undermine his earlier testimony that they work together some of us the test best that counsel referred to were simply provided to the jury to show that those devices were capable back to the days of the