point in seems to me that that raises a question as to what you meant by point as to whether final means when the i p c c is done with it or whether it means when all see proceedings and judicial review proceeds are included here and finally the word that appears in a lot of different status and different meanings in different places sometimes it just means the initial decision sometimes a kind of tribunal that the decision to do or try to and has to be final because you don't want interlocutory appeals frequently coming up there finality the notion of finality does seem fair it's hard to think of any other construction to be that tribunals is finished for now but the language of the statute is just like point out it if it is rather different from that it says until the deter the nation of the commission becomes final which isn't the same thing it seems to me as a final order of the commission because a a in a letter a determination becomes final typically when there's no further opportunity for modification at least absent some form of collateral attack so i wonder if that language isn't more readily amenable to the until the commission of action is no longer directly reviewable by a court court proceeding ok so there's a district court proceeding at least these are the precursors a district court proceeding is brought against prank i take it during the period that are with the with the district court proceeding get some defendants did that anticipate the the commission which which began with respect to some defendants before that the other court ok so the district court case against print go is made a party the district court proceeding at the go into the district court and ash the district court to stay based on print goes now being a party to the commission proceeding ok now when the commission proceeding terminates at least for the time being w final commission water pending appeal to this court well first of all does the district court after you make that initial motion as a district court do anything with and that's all going on coping with the appeal in this court in philips with what we call tilts one for ok and then when the old one goes back to the commission and that the district court lifted the statute to the parties take a position at that point as to the authority of the district court to go ahead with the proceedings after the commission had pending appeal maybe you should have done something more at that point such as sought a mandamus from os or raised it is an issue in the appeal to this court in other words were you diligent in pursuing the theory that question you had an appeal here from which the mandate was the result and his question is designed stan and i had the same question is nowhere that i can recall in that appeal did you say this appeal be then have you in effect waived whatever rights you have to the continued non proceeding of the whole district court litigation by virtue of not having pressed upon us at the time that you had an so you opposed the phillips request to lift the stay that you did not you did not independently seek to enforce a stay pursuant to section sixteen fift is why we haven't decided that in the same language becomes final for example supreme court's decision and very different context to be sure but same language different purposes as was interpreted to me n including judicial review that's a post conviction understandably very different but but certainly that language could be construed to include the appeal and that the do you  and stop than that that while a matter is pending before the commission you have a stay but then because of the court of appeals the district court can go forward that has to stop again when the case comes back on the commission in terms of the purpose there was a reference to a proposed district court hearing on the tenth of december as the distributor continued moving in the direction of the resolution of the damages issue including the to december tenth hearing or where do we stand on that yes it the district court to stop any further proceedings i'm going to infer from your last comment that you would like an order directing the district court to grant the state pro tools and when the beginning of june so your position along has been that the district court was perfectly within its rights to go him again with the proceedings once the commission had entered its color and and if one occurred from this court to the commission now our questioning of your opposing counsel has been along the lines or at least one aspect of it has been on the line to whether they have somehow forfeited their rights to make this argument because they have not pressed the contention that the station had been s throughout this period but you're taking your legal position is correct finality would seem to disable you from making that argument because what you're saying is their construction is the basis of their assumption that once the commission had finished its work that all bets were off was correct so you're really you're not arguing i take it that when they didn't argue to us on appeal that this will actually be stayed that they dropped the ball and but you never argued that they should they were they failed in their diligence by not pursuing that stay pending appeal you didn't have an argument in the paper here or so far as i can tell anywhere else we i believe you have different issue where i ask you a very narrow question and that is do you ever argue this or for your papers here that they will be barred because they didn't pursue the request issue about whether it was appropriate to let the s of i remember the case fairly well and my recollection was that the interaction between the rule of reason analysis and the per se analysis got very complicated and we decided certain issues ended on other issues it wasn't a decision which said this case is over we just have to remember there are there are i don't know what the commission will do the commission maybe read that case very broadly but they may also read it narrowly i suppose and and we're in a somewhat awkward position having to guess is as to what it is that before the commission before we know what the zy but my recollection is that number one that there was a lot in what the administrative law judge wrote that was not reviewed by the commission and my second recollection correct me if this is wrong but that some of it touched at least with respect to certain aspects of the of the transactions that were under review on the whole timing issue now maybe foreclosed legally i don't want i think we have for you reserved five minutes for rebuttal we gave mr binnie a fair amount more than that extra time if you need a little more time you should feel free to take it but don't  waver with respect to certain points in the process i think he i take it that you're saying when they didn't make an argument with respect to waiver my ritual not pressing upon us in the first appeal for example