a money loser would have to go through the irrational process of case to trial or otherwise risk ruin to sanction isn't that doesn't that's the heart of the analysis from long after i gather it's just not disputed as the case comes to us that you did not check whether that claim failed because of a license to  district court judge has a real good vantage point bitching that they made in april which was their contention is derogatory at least according to them now well i've done microsoft only and only one product and then even an expert report it's sort of hard to the expert report being on june fourth which is just weeks away that was the picture they should they took on their content i mean you can't have a license defense before you understand what's being accused and the agreed we didn't understand  moved to august one and then before this one it moved to august twentieth so it was always just a few weeks away to really fall into that for not bringing the fact that acacia had license to do any clearly and was suing based on it as the heart of the  but if you look at those kids there contentions we can now parse now what it says but it's one of these things where they just put lines to diagrams you don't know what they're alleging and we challenge that nato says writing their things this is preliminary information it's all premature  it's a question for me among other places where i could see their expert you couldn't come up with any evidence let me answer this one p c you can come up with any evidence that unix and linux were licensed speak because in the view of the fact that forty three different license how could the store server industry be sued and is i mean at least i guess what i'm remembering which may not quite be a contention in this form is you're disputing of the fifty three percent figure expert refused to give the opinion i mean their expert said he didn't have evidence of the position i don't know why it would be deemed a viable position when we would have to go disprove it but i will you're the one who see fees that's the problem of and so in order to establish right the do it after with their expert admitted he didn't have the evidence but the other point is the expert report a fifteen sixty eight he says that these that linux and unix work according to a standard that must support one connection but doesn't require multiple correct where he mentioned the possibility that the fifty sixty is the precursor where he introduces the standard and he says the standard says they must support at least one connection and may support several connections so we under the standard you might do it and then the fact is our expert put in but redhat and numerous other linux don't support multiple they've got still so you could use it too if you have to show that not only was it being supported which is optional under the standard but then someone was configuring it to do that then you have to show not only they were configured to do that but they were actually doing that then you'd have to show that they weren't being used within h p and i case for they missed at the what i'm describing is the heart of the case because that's what their expert reported survey that that was frivolous by all accounts they immediately acknowledged it they said yes you're right we licensed it they originally argued that was a mutual mistake that the heart of your case just what happened when you could have just looked at the license and figured out that it was license and then he said and you were sanctioned ingested that maybe someone configured some other equipment some other way and some other situation without matter with that as long as the clues aren't problems but this goes to the point where it was not true i wouldn't say did not i'm the totality of circumstances i'm not going to give you an absolute like that but i agree with you that it's more significant if it's frivolous i think the answer here is whether they will they after that the havior that happened where the heart of their case was preparing to be frivolous that they had a duty to say here's what we were thinking here's what we were thinking about why we sued the other jurors we were thinking about and there they said where it's clear that there was problems like that was a baseless case that caused experts discovery that need would need less tunnel for fear that it would be only didn't make the argument they didn't oppose expertise they didn't say it was under cover of all they didn't say anything about that they didn't argument at all it's very different i mean this is the second guessing of a nice trick judge here is very very difficult let me clarify so when you file your in the final footnote some of opposition to your female action summit said if you are planning to award season please give us an additional opportunity  contest the amount after discussing the image with now that is there a local rule a practice some basis on which  expectation of a second stage proceeding might have been reasonable of the sort that would sit rufus before contemplates though doesn't mandate a good question absolutely not here this was unique because of civic order when they counted to dismiss the case with strings attached which is not which is the opposite of good district i said no i'm going to dismiss the case but you can move your feet and set an order requiring when our application f i don't this footnotes a little work cockamamie than that but whatever it said we said we don't know what they're talking about they've waived any argument about that then they'd other submissions to the court and never said well if they're going to argue waiver then here's our opposition or anything else we put in all our billing records with all the pertinent things that are associated with that and they just in the way they treated the whole litigation they flagrantly blew it off and they gave themselves only any relief under delaware civil otherwise could that could is have given itself that extension if it had been in text is i mean is the local rule such that by merely asking for an opportunity to oppose the amount raised or that they're automatically entitled to that opportunity absolutely not i mean that's that would be chaos in district court if i could tell the number of times i would avail myself of a footnote that says the other half if we lose on our first argument will only address the second argument we're going to negotiate with the other side and do it later i mean which is the district court judge here comes back to the question of whether that was practice in a moment that was not the practice the cases they cite well first of all the things that we had