the status quo and i believe the reason why is clear because the status quo exists in every single case every case has a last actual peaceable uncontested status preceding the actual controversy and i think this concept was was on the supreme court and instead the supreme court focused on wrongfully they may call it what you consider in the home run in this case the left actual peaceable uncontested status proceeding the controversy was before the fur defendants wrongfully solicited ulti its customers and before the st defendants began doing business with client list customers  well i think the court very clearly can do that and that will boost the playing field another the customer can decide on their own do i still get business with l t e or do i go back to doing business with l t e where do i do business with some rd party because i customers in that's what i was buying when i purchased the business from there was hauling it was buying relationships it was buying an ongoing business and the interference of those relationships is what can be stopped and you try on the merits so that that's what i consider to be the protectable interest that is not subject to being cured with damages and that is this relationship and the goodwill that l t e is developing in attempt version of the list on his phone the reason why he did it was because of his appointment with he the words he needed because of his employment with well both in other words the only reason he had that customer list at all is other examples in the world to answer that question and you know like apple customers were other customers in the world that have you no particular relationships with a company those companies value those duty of loyalty because that has to mean something and in this in the context of this case i believe very clearly with that means is that while you're employed by employee should not be allowed to hit the relationships that lawyer but but again i think it's no different then the sales job situation where an individual is a sales representative for particular company whether that come he sells widgets or services and they have a restrictive c in criticizing the way the circuit court articulated its rationale but we contend that what's under review of course is the judgment of the circuit court not the rationale and in the line that that that is at issue and in looking at that decision of the circuit court this court a court course applies an abuse of discretion standard and so the list is a trade secret and that they haven't protectable interest in doing business for those for those to as the questions indicate to taking advantage of the market to cut the customer it benefits customers to to have the choice to have a free market to have competition at and here without a with the evidence supports they contend that there's unequivocal have the evidence of solicitation we disagree with that firm said that people came to him is not after being placed in the court f of the public the restriction should be section there is no restrict coverage here this is an attempt to put a competitor out of business and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rationale does not matter i think the rationale does very much matter and the standard seemingly adopted by the circuit court is quite frankly just wrong and another point which it is important to remember is way to essentially begin competing i don't disagree that's the law and if for example mr fir had simply formed a corporation for future purposes to do business at some point in the future i don't think anything was wrong