were fully and finally determined and when you look at the supreme court's recent decision and see r s t van what justice kennedy held there is that even when you have a determination on case that constitutes a determination that confers prevailing party status because the challenge to the defendant in court has been rebuffed and i would just want to point out one thing mr rodriguez the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which congress sought to promote in the fees so the feast has years the copyright fees and it is hard to see how you ruling which has nothing to do with the attached i would refer directly to this court decision in the invensys case in which the court basically held that even if you have a non copyright issue their state contract law issue decided in a way t cheer you did have a merits based determination under state contract law with respect to the arbitration provision so for purposes of terminating whether a copyright case a case under title seventeen was properly brought in the federal court system there would we say that an interest in it is relevant to the fee provisions of the copyright act is being vindicated when all that is it just is which form the copyright act decision will be plaintiffs now is for ever face upon the decision in this court's affirm it's forever foreclosed from bringing a copyright case in the federal court system and so use that have nothing to do with the copyright they don't have to do with the copyright act the which has no fees because it doesn't but i would say that again and pointing back to c r s to another point that comes out of that cases the desire of the supreme court to articulate again that there should be have a fee shifting provision the course with the course of stated by the court has stated that it should be applied consistently and i would submit that here where you have the supreme court stating that non merits based reasons for dismissal still do confer prevailing party status without it necessarily actually i would say explicitly without tying it in that case to title seven because it did say it should be applied consistently across statutes that provide for fee shifting you don't have to find fact that even if you had a dismissal that was based on failure of the points if so i feel a bit offended to answer a complaint or some discovery sanction that resulted in dismissal of the pleading even there the court this court said that would constitute a disposition on the merits such that the prevailing party status would be conferred and i don't i would submit that it's not as different then this case where the dismissal again with alteration case exactly like this it was a case out of the six circuit that we cited the wall street case where in determining whether the plaintiff in that case was the prevailing party or seeking to determine whether it was really a party the court rejected that based terminations to find in a case under the copyright act that the successful defendant having a case dismissed is the prevailing party power of this recent supreme court taking the case out of the federal court system and putting it into arbitration we materially alter the relationship between the parties because arbitration is necessarily a different process then what would happen in this court for example of this recorder could be a jury in a district court the federal rules of of the party and you would not want on the merits in a conventional so what would need to clarify that even that now and in so clarifying it would have walked away from its proposition that we still have to be having these provision indicated and the fees vision vindicating a purpose served by the statute to which the feast of business that has otherwise what you're kind of imagining is i mean wouldn't it if if these even though the one statute that focuses on arbitration doesn't provide that's a very odd it may seem a bit in congress but there is there is a far before it even in this court again i would say focusing back on investments where you got a direct statement by the court and it alludes specifically that of all judgments and discovery sanctions that determined the case there's been no determination on any terminations because there was that you the contract right directly to make your case an affront to the tough america case as well as being recognized as if you decide you want to bring a copyright case and you lose for whatever reason you've lost a copyright case and it waived arbitration by contesting in a district court but we did we chose to enforce the contract do you have a copyright case heard in arbitration and were successful in doing so and that's running the questions all eyes on one other question if you