please the court this appeal presents important issues concerning the proof a plaintiff must present in order to get a price fixing case under section one of the sherman antitrust act to a jury glass throughout its opinion nearly considered the evidence was a and the inference was favorable to the plaintiff and concluded that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable then how you get over that standard and i think it might be helpful to separate out the economic evidence from the nine economic evidence and because wrong and those there may be more economic evidence here than in some of our by pont to get the financial house in order and get prices up for word but collective health of the industry that followed by the commencement of this global statistics program position would be eight percent and that the over the prices increase by sixteen percent for the war but could not be explain by non collusive factors in addition to that in those public price announcements actually acted as communications whether there's evidence of common action a common play in even though there are no meetings or documents that specifically announcements in the prepared but we also have this information sharing through the global statistics program structure you have a finding of a conspiracy in canada you don't have anything remotely like that of of information they were all announcing to a particular effect of the same effect of thirty one times so the press releases themselves  about discipline not undercutting competitors ah not taking share from them all classic cartel behavior in the type of the same types of documents that a purpose suggested by the district court for these prices public announcements val spares contract contract with due partly other manufacturers as well as all the other share some of those same concerns with the district courts a factual discussion and i wonder how much of that is proper summary judgment somewhat tex analysis and how much of that is actually fine with fact which should be for the jury if conscious parallelism is used to respond to every inference reasonable inference that may be drawn from the plaintiff's evidence a circumstantial evidence case one never go to the jury because price fixing happens in all doubt with stick markets where conscious parallelism is a possibility so therefore we take issue with what the wrong to do that because the defendants tonight they were following but even if we agree with you that taking the language of mathematicians and and chakra together that and you could get past them  judgment with circumstantial evidence and evidence that does another inference but when we look at that language it's gotta be more than fifty percent right because taking account of  about discipline and not taking share together with the economic output that i see my time's up why should we even take and signaling when we had that two thousand and nine email that  and indicate i mean for our competitors and in response to our a price increases go ahead and increase prices then they will have understood our message even that indicates that as late as two thousand nine there's not an understanding green and we if the conditional language of that and makes clear that even at that point in two thousand and nine much less historically they don't know how competitors are going to respond well that's a reflection of two things but length of time that this took place and with changes in personnel and so on there would be continuing training but there's also occurred right after the  recession the dow the crash in two thousand and eight so they were obviously there were price increases happen in two thousand and eight because of what was going on in the economy and in the two thousand night it was a need to get it going to again and again that this discussion reflects communication albeit tacit which is allowed exclude the possibility that dupont and the other firms acted independently it really is simply not enough to point to evidence that could be consistent with a conspiracy but it could equally be consistent with that's why i felt so vexing about the syria is that how are we not only as a public works but how our district courts to distinguish tacit agreements which are illegal standard it articulated the standards that we're talking about flowing from that should that and require traditional conspiracy evidence and the evidence there was of a completely different elk a completely different nature than what we have it issue here all we have here is conduct that suppliers off one another to get prices to get better contract terms that evidence is not limited to ballots are that is a process several other customers in the record margins profit margins mclean regression model which is a theoretical model which is a very different exercise then looking at the transactions paces after an announcement to determine whether their place is actually however we have to evaluate the evidence in the context of all the other evidence and in the context of our stary and they are positing a conspiracy that was quite successful and marseilles so because we need to be cautious about mistaken inferences we need to look for that there are traditional conspiracy evidence the bilateral communications between companies are not at issue here just has as you noted it in baby food and chocolate there were some of the communications that even in those cases were not sufficient we don't even have any of that here but if the mountains constant communication if their purpose in signaling that communication could a theory and it has agencies have theories along those lines the case all really hasn't caught up to that but in any event what we have here are a few important facts first of all it's undisputed that these same kinds of public place increase announcements were appropriate for the district court judge to examine the evidence because he has to in order to part of the a standard because a tie actually does go to the defense of this case this court has been very clear on that so he didn't have to undertake that analysis with respect to any change in the creek period and relevant period it is not the kind of radical or abrupt change that this war has required most recently a child it to cut to constitute evidence increase in costs and declining profit margin so of course in that instance they are going to announce price increases and try to get prices up again particularly because they often are not effective so twenty eight of the announcements occurred as an example when costs were increasing and that analysis is at nine one four eight of the appendix so there is no inference to be drawn from any difference between what happened in the prepared and what happened in the relevant period some really just the sheer number of announcements o think i don't think that is a fair conclusion all the economics and he's all tells us that this is exactly the kind of follow the leader pair of conscious parallelism that one would expect in this kind of industry so if it isn't a firearms unilateral interest to you know announce when other competitors announce sometimes why would it be all the time again particularly when we think about what these announcements were in that they didn't change list prices but if they announce they can try to increase prices or if they need to retain volume or see an opportunity to gain volume they cannot implement the increase and they can even lower prices in fact significance of the announcement in that but is the competitors receiving and understanding the clear message close quote about price increases well i do think we have to guess as to the intention because the evidence in the economic evidence including the plummeting margins tells us what the intention was with respect to emails there is absolutely nothing wrong and in fact it's expect it for firms to raise their prices hoping their competitors are going to do the same in those it's nothing but that and in fact show as as your honor pointed out that we do want the other you really didn't know what their competitors were going to do all of the e mails when you read the int normal interdependent conduct of testing the marketplace seeing what's going to happen i don't know cronus is going to follow i sure hope they do and that is entirely legitimate and lawful conduct so there is no difference to be drawn and of more informally to gather market intelligence that's the kind of gathering of market intelligence that this court has repeatedly recognised babyfood in other cases it's evidence of concerted action it is not  it really is you know a zero sum gain in terms of evaluating the evidence certainly retaining expert consultants is at least equally consistent with independent conduct and there's no evidence here whether it's at least equally consistent with independent conduct but it is true that they were evaluates the evidence in the context of the other evidence i don't dispute that for a moment but to answer the question which is posit for a m price increase because it feels like it needs to get prices out its competitors follow suit and then never announce another place increase because to might be too many or can it do two or three but not more than that would have to wait six months a year or two years who knows they were could then not join a trade association because then the combination of being a member of a trade association and having some parallel case increases might be enough or would be ok to join the trade association but then brothel statistics program that is necessary and helpful to run your business to understand the rules apply in demand because that might be the evidence that would be enough to get to a jury so it  nature of a completely different nature is sufficient we just don't have anything that one looks at and says this really doesn't make sense in the case if it is direct evidence of an agreement in those cases there was direct evidence of agreement on the non economic side and you're sitting there saying we don't need that on one hand on the other right what else could there be in terms of circumstantial evidence in this case that would make it more likely than not  into account in finding the sixteen percent overcharge and shows that it was the cost increases did not justify the price increases that's a fact collusive factors that's what i mean by that on at the end of the day big issue in these cases rather than focus seen is this you know fifty fifty or fifty one at the end of the day with me at sushi that means as explained by the supreme court kodak is are the plaintiffs inference is a conspiracy of which is thirty three percent likelihood of being true can we aggregate those and say that's a moment of well no problem if you have forty pieces of you to a point where they're isolated and so i think that's clear but your honor i would agree with you that court cases are not like math equations and i don't conspiracy reasonable price isn't there some qualitative analysis required of the salient pieces of evidence what i mean it's not a meth problem but it's not either is not that different than all other cases i make words have to make a judgment about what a reasonable drug can conclude in that's still what we're talking about here i don't think it's that