wasn't influenced by well what we don't know is whether the jury hung over which count which degree murder first and second which i think is the reasonable reading of the record or whether they hang on whether i'm guilty or innocent but regardless those jerks who believe that mr johnson was guilty of murder had have relied on his confession because that was ninety five percent of the evidence against certainly reasonable that he could have recognized mr johnson's photo in the photo lineup from just having seen him around he did the pieces literally and did not see the person who robbed him until you have to change this is a jury who originally was looking at a murder in three robbery counts and only convict mr johnson of one robbery you don't know how much it was a factor that well we can't decide on anything else we've got this one robber and then met that up with the police officer at the side of the robbery where they actually did the police report and at that time he did not think that he had had any interactions with the robber from the time you seen the police officer immediately before that that ignore the proper standard and correctly applied it it's so again i think under the government standards you know if we were in a regional fact finding position then i confession would have changed the result now all three of those statements are erroneous as i said we don't know what the jury hung on it's most likely that they hung between first and second degree murder not that they hung on this case raises important issues with respect to the district court judges to honor the requirements of rule sixty and sixty five result in this case could have a tremendous impact on whether a reasonable defendant in thousand nine hundred ninety nine dollars ninety nine cents without any kinds of other things to be just fine well your honor i understand your i know people get away with getting to finish the time things like this all the time so it doesn't make it right in the context of that was all about whether there was then to be an injunction in the future my clients a billion dollar company on the new york stock exchange and they wanted infringe and i said no you need substantially similar and then they came with the rule sixty eight offer and said ok well let the judge decide that you can't you can't just look at the last part of that sixty eight after you have to look at the terms in the same mark and then we're back filing a lawsuit which should be able to enforce the injunction that was negotiated and that's just it's absolutely clear from the bush where we were right and what we turned over to the to the district  prompted the parties do you want me to conduct a mini trial and no one requested and it was after the fact that the brief was made by hanssen story where they said well if you're going to consider the correspondence the fre you've agreed that i'm to film the terms your honor we're fine with that one and we wouldn't want to be based on the pre november second proposal that we rejected you know that's what we were going to do and if you wanted to hear it what would you be hearing on i mean it's it was correspondence between the attorneys we're going back and forth trying to negotiate a settlement and we just came to an impasse and we decided to turn it over to the judge well not have been included in the offer and that's what we were trying to do with you saying we want we want to do this again so we're never going to violate your rights and if we do we're right up the street from you know where we live for york stock exchange company you can come find us you can bring it out where your customer you can send us a nice letter there's no reason to have a fifty state seven page document and how do i characterize it as language and photographs there's no reason for a fifty seven page document in this litigation and the rules are going to have directly or indirectly the importation from any country or the exploitation to any country whether commercial or otherwise regardless of format or medium any information or information on the trio's which by definition includes also films number two there's no distinction between countries hundred regulation and countries outside of the regulations all there is no special rules for countries that are within the regulation and was what can be done and rules apply for countries that are the rights of americans was more important in fact according to the house conference report it was indicated a commercial information materials were exempted from the general provisions of the regulations to the exemption ok i i don't think there's any question but what you can import that south and you can pay for it ok what you did anything you used the film presumably you were getting the trouble w appeal i want to talk about the first amendment i want to discuss the executive orders and i want to apply all of that to the contract here and first of all if this court were to authorize the transactions that are regulations were just signed to attempt to address the issue of international terrorism and the issue of the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction there may be some trade issues involved but the overall purpose for this  copyright it should not be recognized because the means by which they obtain the copyright violates him are go and therefore all six of those contracts are illegal a lawful is different than providing marketing if you will in the environment if you just didn't think of all the ways in which somebody might try to avoid or evade the purpose of the environment and that's what we have here we have this money going back just a few points first of all the as far as royalties are concerned royalties are a very normal part of our intellectual property contract whether  a regulation on the matter of paying for those types of intellectual property and information from the cheerios would be a violation of the first amendment because it would be a direct regulation of the importation and exportation of district or band information materials was because of the first name an issue and so on when the defendant explained the commercialization is not allowed and you can't send money back to iran commercialization will have the right to register their cut rates in iraq and to enforce their rights in the united states as we indicated from the senate report on the berne convention the us is the largest exporter of information information materials for discretion and i think in these circumstances it is you know prejudiced because there is no discovery that was done and therefore we take the most important issue i think is with there they said there was twenty percent perhaps of the basic sequence that was used in the movie and that was enough and this is what i think you're precluded from showing in the matter of law the movie the peacemaker does not but it is not substantially similar to any protect that expression in any of the register works or as i said even in the   so but ultimately what's protected is at least i would say three levels you have the story level you're talking about the pattern of the character surprising that if you smuggling weapons out of a country you're going to cross the border or checkpoint and you're probably going to have a confrontation if it's going to be a drama if it's if you don't have a confrontation maybe it's a different kind of story as far as the characters go the rule of the circuit is quite clear very difficult to clean protection for you or picture characters that i described the most likely work but one of the things that i think has to be not