guidelines that have been copyrighted and appropriated by the defendant and literally admittedly appropriated and we are here only to protect that expression and nothing else universe of rules in the landsburg case which the trial court relied on exclusively when you enter the thought process of how am i going to create a networking organization you're certainly in a broader open ended universe then how can i write a manual to teach people how to play scrabble which is a closed universe so it's not factual like a phone book it's certainly not the kind of work we just listened to the elegant arguments about but it's something in between with think you can get caught up in the jargon here and lose concept lose touch with concepts that are somewhat elusive step there's obviously a difference between a phone book and a biography and you could loosely say that both factual but there are obviously totally different concepts and i would suggest should be examined with a totally different mindset in this particular case access was not only conceded it's especially underscored given that the respondent was employed and to get back to your honest question about limited ways of expression the fact is when you appropriate the works of another and you literally copy them verbatim that's copyright violation if the ideas are protective or and there's a minimal amount of creativity involved you just can't compare landsberg a closed universe of rules to how am i going to formulate a networking organization despite how obvious relationship marketing may look now we're looking at a system that has it's fine tuning as a very fine engine when they when they evaluate how each chapter is going every six weeks there are thirty factors that they look at to make sure that chapter continues to operate they respond and evaluation of chapter uses twenty six of those thirty that's no accident it's literal and at her deposition she literally admits she copies it i use the ideas and the issue then we really boils down to  substantial similarity in this context and it's not a phone book and it's it's not fiction obviously and what we what it was the trouble of looking at as evidence they had one declaration which she color coded and she literally admitted by not color identical and suggests that there's not been a verb datum copying i don't think there's any other your your work is basically a work on how to do something better how to do so yes absolutely for example let's go to the diagram in this case which is essentially the second half of the argument when you have a relationship marketing which is confessedly an idea not an expression of a how to market better but let me get to the special part of my argument w picture and diagrams of course as as your own as well now are fully protected by the copyright laws and require a minimal degree of creativity we have the contacts fears which pictorially represent the idea that an expression you can't say a simplistic expression but it's an expression if you have a minimal degree of creativity involved required if you have the inverse ratio applying ratchet up to his maximum given her access how can you say that a reasonable jury would not have found sections there we would suggest that one of the one of the one of the i think the only case relied upon by the trial court is now unique and it's very easy to breeze over that because i want everybody shakes hands and does business but not this way and it has not but it has never been cultivated this successfully it's still expanding expanding supposedly and this respondent copyright protection under federal law that we're asking you to change i loved working for being on nine hundred ninety nine and sued them for breach of contract for failure to franchise a promise that it is made to me for ten years i want not chase and three almost three years after leaving the end i started my own networking organization and after that i and i created all of the in the team's materials almost three years after i left the and i's well in between that that it's in the lower court for federal copyright infringement and employment contracts however everything that you may do after you leave the employment of yes it's a national honor and h prevailed and a lower court cracked yes you said two weeks ago it was a two week trial and it was a couple of months ago after being in business for a year i was due to the copyright infringement and one on summary judgment one on copyrights number states that if the scans show similarities the normal measure required to demonstrate infringement super substantial similarity must pertain when dealing with then works i don't believe that putting circles around words very common verbiage would would say that anything is creative in line with that approach the ninth circuit has held that when they are talking and that was the steers that you're materials only has to do with representing a chapter of team referral network and other words whether an individual chapter of coal want to ask would look like the people that are involved or a chapter a team referral network would look like for the members that would be involved  basic industry standard or real estate agent a mortgage lender a financial planner people who are in small business and are in business for themselves who would like to generate this type of restoril marketing for their business to state that in this approach the ninth circuit is held when the range of protectable and unauthorized expression is narrow as it is in this case the appropriate standard for illicit copying is virtual i identical or as judge and terence found not even substantially similar other than what other was unavoidably similar for the nature of the business if you are mcdonald's and burger king you're talking about fast food in hamburgers and cheese burgers and french fries and there's only a limited number of ways to express those ideas and information and i believe the judge of tara was correct in his ruling in this case and i hope that this court will find that as well and if there are any other the arabs clear on that issue the state court found there was no trade secret that what b and i have been doing for twenty years is now out there some extent that is a completely irrelevant issue to whether or not she has been using the techniques and procedures what's more whether you use the techniques and procedures has nothing to do with you where they are violating copyright so the issue that no one has ever suggested to you before you can corroborate something it has to be a trade secret and conclusion that there's an admission or verbatim copying you have to reach a conclusion that there is a reasonable jury out there that could find substantial similarities between the diagrams i don't feel to address just callahan's concern with respect to our history that when you talk about how a phone book is a range you're not talking about artistry if you want to fall back on the jargon of factual versus not fiction versus something that's in the creative realm and not the nonfiction realm i don't think we're looking for an artistic suggesting we have are here with suggestion that we have minimal creativity in a protective all diagram and we're not suggesting that we're the monopolizing the idea however given her ten years have that she admits have been duplicated program guidelines for the six guidelines for visiting chapters are identical and when you start focusing and for twenty years focus on how to network becomes very material shall i let a member hands and maybe get a business card when you look at exhibit six five out of the six criteria for degrees for declining members are identical when you look at options for handling complaints identical and that was the area which you in the it's silly and utilitarian concept can be thrown out of court without our getting our day in court i think that if we had our day in court the jurors would be out considerable period of time thank you very much i thank you for your argument  submitted the court's just going to take a pretty free sasa five minutes so i will be back in five minutes thank you