wrong like start by trying to outline the two or three areas that are think of most significance first of all of the issue of economic benefit secondly whether or not e objection that i made to the document created three years after the fact to prove that my client had signed a convention agreement which contained terms similar to the non disclosure agreement in a situation where the person who testified did not personally see the document signed was not familiar with mr john signature never spoke to him about having signed the document and claims to have relied upon viewing the document which was compiling these documents first of all with regards to the economic benefit i think this is the only case of the united services jin shei i and which the government relies on that i am aware of where there is no evidence the affirmative  that mr jong did anything to try to take advantage of the documents in fact in this case it has no obvious he offered to sell the documents there is no evidence that he and that is also the document which mr judge white acquitted him because he found that the purpose for using that document was wholly unrelated to the other information on the that in fact the current information of occurrence currency was irrelevant to this discussion it had provided no economic or any sort of advantage to broadcom the discussion dealt with the voltage which is a public information you can find it any trade manual in fact we introduced trade manuals to prove that this information was in fact publicly available  who cooperated with the f b i during their investigation who admitted that in fact she and others are certainly others are not she possessed marvell documents which they should have ad but none of those documents came  testified that mr joe never even mentioned that he had these documents the other thing is that at the inception of this case there were several assumptions that the government made the first assumption was one of the assumptions was that my client had contributed information to the competitive analysis that was circulated at broadcom on may of two thousand and five we presented evidence to a computer forensic there was a complete absence of any evidence that he did so informally such as talking to someone or supervisor in fact it was a stipulation that his supervisor someone let him never even saw the document so there is a you the hard part and particularly given the standard of review we have her sufficiency of the evidence how is it that it's not possible for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that he did this for his own benefit surrounding the time he decides to go to work for somebody else is not like his behavior or apparently the behavior or anybody else is in a d d and so i have i hear his argument but i don't know why that makes the fact finders conclusion that that's not credible or that's not really his motivation why is the fact reasonable with him to the contrary it's not reasonable because if you use that logic that the mere fact that he downloaded gathering as for the winter he scattering information any he might improve his own prospects in the future and might educate himself to make himself more valuable there are lots of ways where you want to take advantage of an opportunity what have later and it's hard to figure out a different motivation you suggested while he was doing it for the current projects he was working out of here now maybe but that's not a real strong argument because he hadn't behaved like that before and he wasn't led to lose access to the documents as long as  kicked out the able the eight the project never occurred that this is a development project it's not we're not there we're not talking about the siding what ships the use of project that's already been approved we're talking about planning but the point is is when i job and the only other reason is that you are taking it for your own benefit at least under that prong of the statute  that there will be circumstances where someone has in fact taken three secrets where they stole him or not because he a paid them legitimately that's where the first recounts were dismissed by the court u is right outside he gets arrested for being drunk in public can he be charged convicted for drunk driving merely because he may have intended or he may he may have  remind me of a california law and federal crime i'm trade's think that you have to have the intent to convert for economic benefit under the regular uniform trade secret aspect which would be a civil arrested when they found out that he had gone to with the executives found out the other people over you but he was going to a competitor that's what they did or not but they never did or not before that i'm going to reserve forty seconds before about oh thank you position that next year the timing of his downloads the quantity of documents he downloaded the fact that he took those documents with him when he went to marvell's fierce competitor and his subsequent statements to the i i'd like to end half a little bit how those facts and others demonstrate that the defendant intended to convert the trade secrets for the economic benefit of someone other than marvell as an initial matter the evidence demonstrates that the defendant did not download these documents in the course of his his neck their responsibilities instead he downloaded them within a few days of accepting a job with marvellous fierce competitor he downloaded seven times as many documents as anyone else at next year downloaded that month combined and more than twice as many documents as he had downloaded in his entire career at next year furthermore she computer yes i believe he told the f b i and the f b i was executing the search warrant there were several computers in the house and he had to hide which computer was which and i think i believe there was a computer for his wife i think there was a personal computer that h to do with the documents although he initially claimed he had downloaded the documents in furtherance of his work at next year once he was confronted by the fact that the f b i agents had spoken to his former colleagues and had learned from them that that  was trade secret information in that respect but aside from the document which we know was sheer horror to broadcom people but which the district court declined to find as the basis for a conviction was there evidence any particular information from this side of documents that we shared with other people with broadcom there was no evidence of that and that's because think within about two months of when the defendant started at broadcom so there you know he although he had already consulted these documents and circulated one of them within broadcom he had not fully actualized their value yet there's not sufficient evidence of intent because there's not evidence that rules out the possibility that he was doing it for his engineering curiosity what evidence was there that he wasn't doing it just because he was asked in the subject matter  the fact that he downloaded the documents to his broadcom computer rather than his personal computer for example maybe it was a better computer possibly although there's nothing in there to suggest that and i think the but even if this court were to go in the other direction and credit the defendants claim that he had been consulting these documents for engineering sure yesterday that still demonstrates that he was intending to convert them for the economic benefit  someone other than broad he was intending to convert them for his own economic benefit because he was by trade an engineer and if you wanted to review these documents for engineering here yesterday it would make him a better engineer and you acknowledged as much the sharing its information with its customers and there was evidence that customers were in fact frustrated about how difficult it was to get access to marvell information and that they needed in order to work properly with marvel product itself although the documents some of the doctors were in fact introduced and certainly the general were discussed the other thing is that in terms of the reviewed has dealt with the result measured in the context of the company's employees not in terms of a vendor or a end user in this case it would  sufficient as i indicated at the very end marvell never followed up with regard to anything that netgear was doing didn't require exit interviews which is just based on what think everyone knows that that in a courier because netgear had no procedures in place and marvell never took any action to apprise itself of whether or not yet here was in fact taking actions to protect this intellectual property so i think based on that