paragraph is that no significant cost of the incurred because everyone has easy access to the internet it's not how you see internet it's simply noting that it's there in the next spare graph it talks about using an internet or private network and that lines thirty six through thirty eight they know actually at the beginning it says it's that line twenty four to five and internet is similar to the internet and then a thirty five to thirty eight it says it's inexpensive is an existing network requiring little or no changes to the network configuration you just and if you want to know how what kind of interface you use column seven lines fifty five sixty one standard the signal if you want to yellow great that had forty three you argue that to riddle i'm quoting you don't need to rely on the testimony instead of opening break one must first make the unsupported assumption that rapid parts was running microsoft exchange when the testimony was only that it used email by microsoft and that time i had to scribble note on at that time did microsoft offer email services other than microsoft zero nine one there was a deepening flame in french without the independent for the a six seven patent they found contributory infringement but no additional they found the customers did not face that the predictable application of the known technology is obvious that's set because there's no underlying facts few the internet of course it's old and teaches nothing about how to use the internet other than what's already known zero teaches it in th specific contacts there is really nothing left of the legal why did you have did you have the teaching though of using the network cloud to mirror storage systems yes that's where we're is that showed in the prior art that is the zero reference that we're going to narrow down if one can narrow it down to require for example storage controllers best require an anticipation because the only way you could actually have a teaching would be in the exact context of and in which case anticipation that's not require lost whatever in this context of mirroring back ups you have a teaching of use of the internet and nothing surprising about its application in connection with and so then the question is is that is that sufficient to prove to prove contributory infringement the intent and again that this is another inconsistency because for indirect infringement the jury found contributory little hard so to explain these are the system again this isn't in dispute if you could think of it like an artist making a painting you have a current painting is the production side inserts all you have recovery disk which is the painting as it existed fo hours ago so it's deliberately old and then you have to be sure all that is each of the brush strokes that have been made in the last four hours so that each of the computer right transactions so in this search those system if you want to know what this looks like you can roll your four here is the controller isn't the one shutting it down it's different to shut down the controller than it is to shut down it's feeding and i wish that it wasn't this kind of a factual issue for the jury to decide i don't think so your honor because it was actually always there a and i know that we have a big record here to indicate at the start but was there a claim construction on this issue about what meant to be shut down that it had to be just the can it had to be the controller wouldn't be the word in the middle of it that's actually is that what you need to do is to keep a copy a file copy of the data copying it right and send it over to the other side that's exactly the way that's sort of the answer i was thinking about i was thinking about tell to disregard this testimony it was based solely on his testimony that there would have been a reason our motivation to do that is to either the internet being cheaper or the notion of redundancy this is exactly the combination that the board of cannot be lost and then you have to know for sure it's been received by the other side by getting an acknowledgement of right in line so there was there was clear there are clear reasons in the references themselves why you would never do that and mr justice emcees expert explained to them one that in his extensive experience working with these that it lines in the prior art which suckers out didn't have there would have been very clear reason not to substitute the networks because of that as he so we had a two week trial the jury returned a verdict that in one respect nobody disputes theirs and friends are going to for him see us we know that because of the beginning of each section of the verdict form it says chat yes or no are as well there's infringement and they check yes there was a jury instruction that said it was sufficient for them to hold their liable for infringement if they found frenchmen of quote one or more claims and for each one they checked one thing so they clearly found in i just segue back to what the point is the point is at the time the jury rendered its verdict and when the court entered its judgment thirteen days later may twenty first there is no doubt about about was the reflect the adequacy of money in exchange for a license for that so the only time the cover of the for the settlement and that's an additional reason why when you just look at these licenses and their terms you know book you should  that's the age old rule that that chief justice roberts was referring to it has concurrence in the case of the supreme court i don't want to eat up all the rest of us with time and i want to know where on the record it says that that phone call we discussed before is the is the first time he learned of the city or software so i didn't memorize the pages not included in it and if i can tell you that i took his deposition and i asked that question and so i said officer what i can tell you i know for isn't reasonable given the third circuit you know admonition to try and reconcile inconsistency is to say well they checked i guess it's claims to win the three nine five and claim five of the own nine one so they necessarily concluded that the requisite independent claim was was in fridge and that's a mr rader's basically said well yes except they didn't actually indicate that they found that it was a french which is why that this report looked at this issue and found it to be inconsistent i'd like to get to the injunction of you since that's obviously a critical import the only thing is you asked for was an injunction against all sales when they come in and say there we say there's a design around that we have to sign around if they agree virtually ton here and connection with the future royalty or an injunction the problem is they don't agree and we will just have more litigation over whether it can be designed or is there a problem with an injunction that says you can't big circle can be very large or very small it puts them out of this and it doesn't do that or even really materially affect the emcees business and that's why the balance of the hardships weighs heavily in favor of no injunction in connection with one of the ten and so that this report reasonably concluded that the mc at match on any particular lost sales or that it was searched overnight in the market you know she could make a sale given differences of price points and other people in the market