the argument today we have two cases one is argued the other is submitted on the record and on the briefs submitted case for the purposes of  all as i understand it the system itself basically use an with chronic system of replaces the old telephone book type of system that the government had for a defense department become so all of the items and elements that they're looking for is now on line and people can look at those particular products that they might want to sell to the federal government and they look it up online right fact to mr phillips here i want to i want to move on because because you don't have you know you want a lot of time for argument and you've got a ruling here that there's a breach your client has suffered a breach of contract the government's responsible for the breach but there's no remedy of the remedy that you sought was lost profits you weren't shaking reliance restitution damages or any other form of contract remedy so those are off the table either you're gonna get we're talking about in this case was involved in that case in that case and the i think in this case as well as in the case whether you can prevail or not will depend on lot that's very helpful and they because the question i want to ask you was let me preface my statement by saying i realize that this court did not write an opinion in the opinion that your client and so what i was curious to know is in what respect is the evidence this in your case apart from dr kirby whom we've taken after tracing partner makes thank you very much in what respect is the record testimony on which to rely and improvement if you will over dr kalos as models which was found to be insufficient if you know just thank board both in khaki and in this case is that the guilty party if you will of the breach is the united states government but it wasn't the united states government that was going to supply the didn't run the board to try to get to the pieces in order to sustain a lost profits of one and i think as i say i don't i take it with admirable candor that mr phillips says mr crazy gone however with believes there's evidence in the record that the board did not agree and gore didn't look at the record and say ok tracy's gone we find him not to be believable but there is this additional evidence in the form of the january ninety five ninety six amounts per month the market share the profit margins etc that mister philips on that those clients is the board he was entitled if you will to an opinion from the board that rejected that is that's what i hear him to be saying so it's like a process case now i think since the board didn't  those factors and then give him an opinion yes or no on whether he's entitled to last prop i think i hear that that's he can tell me a rebuttal if i've misunderstood his kate now if that is his case and if the general proposition is that wrongs should find remedies and i can find plenty of cases that stand for that proposition what's that shouldn't we consider a remake to tell the board that it that the number of purchasing orders going through the system has no relationship to what their market share actually is he also said that data was basically junk it hadn't been with that the way to define market share which would be corresponding to the claim percentage would be to look at sales to look at the total sales in the market compared to the sales of the service charge it has to the people that visit its site so to speak and then a transactional cost right not transactional cost is this a monthly charge and simpl have that fact alone fatal to the lost profits claim certainly not because of because i don't think there's a dip is there's no debate about fifty bucks a month in january ninety five up to seventy five bucks in ninety six  to mr philips well you know you can't get a jury war unless you've got causation which is the long run the longest time back and he said i got causation nailed you know i go about calculating a jury award on lost profits given the nature of this enterprise it was charging money to people who paid money to have this valve opened up through which they could gain access to the government to try to do business with them real transactions were  way back when the internet was brand new so i just was wondering why there maybe might not have been sufficient assuming that the fact findings that you claim or the you assert were not  that supported the board's doesn't that there was no access because of the no call no access to to a jury for it looked to me like there were enough data points that you might be able to cobble together something that would survive yes twenty four seventy point twenty four seventy two yes thank you