took with him when he came to a group of teens there are some i don't know and i highly doubt that whatever program is left that might be used has any bearing on the relationship or appearance of similarity would ever existed back in two thousand for you're saying it's a two thousand and four program federal court and you're saying if the two thousand and one program in the state court no no we're not there are there is no claim by cooper now to ownership of the two thousand two crowbar if you need one to say two thousand and four yeah the thirty day limitation here is what's i want to know what is going to happen here is if we say this has to go to arbitration then in the arbitration you will say he failed to make the needed immediate access to the courts to vindicate your trade secrets presumably all clears would be in that position and i still don't know why would an employee needs to argue that the employer has at the state complaint now that you found i mean in front of me to the court and so did edition two fine and based on the whole argument the district court also had two days of hearing testimony didn't better its decision until after two days of evidence concluding  e able to negotiate something that he could live with but they said no here it is this is what you have to take to get where you have to the way as i understand it on that particular provision there is only one provision he was arguing about and now it was the ownership not the computer model he was in arguing about the arbiter billet the clause and they said take it or leave it on that section i don't know if there's any evidence that they said take it or leave it on the rest of the employment contract  even i am cooper and if you have a program that is essential to the operation of my business you're an employee you have just left you've taken my program do you think that i'm going to go to arbitration which is going to take weeks and months or do you think i isn't this employment situation the employer needs the opportunity to get injunction to preserve the status quo because presumably he's using the trade secret program whatever and that the employee would not correct and is there anything that is true to him from using   information then you really have to make a showing of prejudice if you waiver case is based on a late defense of arbitration ok i don't know much about how prejudice plays into it when your claim is that they elected affirmatively to start a different case so where are we in prejudice with regard to that scenario as opposed to the late defense of arbitration claim is based on initiation of a lawsuit in a different form not in this case and the reason that we don't need prejudice in fact the district court signaled that by its waiver discussion referring to it is not a tradition there is no requirement of prejudice i didn't hear you say that and if i may your honor the district court in its analysis i think simply did  prejudice per se and what we're trying to find out from you is if we doubt and really if you that this is necessarily the kind of prejudice that would  and where we are may be to follow these live forum cases and i'm asking which i think sally discussed and i'm asking you how  simply a nonsensical position there is no copyright on the model the issues are what the code is now is a big blow the judge kelly finally got so we don't want to look at that second line isn't code part of the model which was then the outstanding pennsylvania law sally too has changed at least that portion of the rule and so my question remains under the law as it poor venue for a set back down for the judge to look at the record and make determinations not previously made but there's nothing in the record to support that this court can look at the workers has nothing to support such a filing the court would have to have additional hear more testimony by d it's really not necessarily fair that he says then i think he said that finally got around to that point yet this isn't a case where you have to make a showing of prejudice because the contract