judges and then yesterday at four o'clock we get from the attorneys who only just got it and then yesterday a permanent injunction on final judgment which is i read the case law we're going let the lawyers address it moots the plumber injunction and probably requires that we start of all briefing particular sense and i've deliberately not read the permanent injunction yet because i didn't get it until late and i don't want to form any opinions that far in advance without briefing on it and i was the more than double the size of it indicates there's something in there other than just filler but we'd like to hear from you all on the move next question we've directed your attention to some authorities late yesterday but  the presumption that i'm operating on is when they found judgment is entered in a permanent injunction is issued the player injunction is moot at least where there is no bond or dispute over the bond and of course in this case do about that we'd be glad to hear from you on that right so as you said judge barnes there's been a lot of work put in this case i think about half the states more than half the states in the country i thought amicus brief on one side or the other the case i know of course the panel  this appeal in abeyance until the appeal of the permanent injunction can reaches the court and then consolidate those two appeals and then at that point the panel would be in a position to decide how much new briefing is required  about two years now and and we would suggest that the reasons of judicial economy is what led the court to hold that appeal in abeyance i think judicial economy you know understand we've certainly got the power to fill in abeyance but there was no moment this issue and that we thought that it might be right and the only point i would make is that i think you do have the ability to do that because when the point is that you would be able to consolidate these two appeals and handle it in a more judicially economized way well but here's the thing at and maybe this is just giving the interest of our efficiency priority over years shocking as though that may be but that's the way the  ranch but here's the thing i don't want to have to read through all these briefs and then read the new order and then read through those supplemental  the very least briefs and figure out what's changed and all that and i'm not sure you all want to do it either in terms of addressing each other my idea and i'm speaking primarily for myself here is now i'd like us then then have jurisdiction to decide yeah i got word processors i can tell by the length of the bracelet you have were processed but you can go through and adjust unmodified to two  the new opinion in support of the judgement and permanent injunction now why is that and if the make i want to refile all that's fine to the extent that they address something that's changed are the same i just think it would be a waste of the eleventh circuit resources to have a new panel aside for the we'll discuss that i want to hear from both sides on that but my inclination is exactly the same as yours  as time passes that would be less and less of a concern because i have to gear back up and we all will but we haven't delved into it and we have done some least my time and some independent research on it panel well i think that would be a good thing and also i'll add you know i've had the opinion for as long as you have i have noted that the opinion actually expressly responds to certain arguments that we made in this court in our and this is this is beyond this case this is not an efficient way to run a system and this court had every authority and power to do what it did but were there end occasions that that was  junction and oftentimes this court end is siding the plymouth injunction well all but are all decide the merits of the permanent injunction because everybody's put their best shot forward that didn't happen here was there any indication that the district court was was going to issue i'm trying to see how we can avoid this in the future judge cars i think we're on the same page there i will say that after the plenary injunction was issued here the parties got together and agreed that there was no need for more evidence we agreed that the appeal you know that the appeal of the injunction would result the case and also that basically the district court could just enter the planner junction as a final judgment stamp that was months and months ago oh as a year or so ago yes that's right and and i will also say i delayed the briefing thinking that we would get a plumber a judgment i mean a sort of final judgment issued shortly after we made that agreement and it just never came and so we had no required to do so but the district court could have been informed you know and through all of us are even copy to us i'm working on a permanent injunction i'm working on an order on the issue involving the permanent injunction and found judgement in this case and i expect to have it out in a matter of weeks months whatever and there's nothing that requires that but boy it's in addition to the justice here we need to hear  just one point though with response with hard to judge thompson and the entry of the timing of what happened here we know when knew of course that the order would come yesterday but the parties had briefed and agreed to brief the merits of the final order penned the final order in the case that was briefed and settled before judge thompson quite some time ago and as mr brashear alluded to at that briefing on our appeal by agreement between the parties was delayed and so it seems like a matter of circumstance in some ways that the two that both matters got pushed back and in fairness thompson we didn't ask i mean other point i'd add that i agree with your honor suggestion that new briefing is an order it wouldn't make sense to try and this is again i haven't had the opportunity at like your honor to digest it in full but it delves into significant new facts in response to the party's briefing below makes additional factual findings legal conclusions and trying to find a way to graft that on top of the additional briefing i think is not in order here i think the appropriate course under the case is in this court order from yesterday is to dismiss the appeal and for the state to take an appeal from the final permanent injunction i think so if we do that oh i expanded the time to twenty minutes just you know have a feel for whether that's adequate people that literally were in the on bach roaming room and it was a copyright case and name number senior and them or jr were there to argue it on behalf of or against c n n i forget who  a very big deal when somebody mentioned the fact it is in their permanent injunction and a final judgment in this case so it could be worse that somebody would will get out an order on that toss shortly