council before we before we start i think there's a for a living or a matter that we have to dispose of digital angel has proposed certain  demonstrative aids for oral argument and there's been an objection and i gather i didn't read the objection as being to the effect that these items were not before the district court but rather that they were sort of some form of improper advertising i think that word was used at at oral argument is that correct because it it appeared from the record that that this material for whatever it was worth was presented to the district court ok fine i appreciate that thank you ken that was the one thing i will say and and i'm not don't i'm not articulating just my view but also the view of my panel colleagues on this is that often it's been found that these kind of eight oral arguments are more of a distraction and hindrance to counsel than an aide because typically what happens counsel be up there they have to go over and point to something and they step back the flow of the organ is lost so i just i just mention that of the language of the license and so forth so just wanted to confirm you reserve five minutes fear obama is ok knew you have a sense of how the lighting system works yes ok well you can start whenever you're you're licensed to make have made use and sell one of lex designed and developed electronic identification systems for two and i'm adding the numbers electronic identification systems not technology but electronic identification systems that are acquired for license by all flex and the systems are defined elsewhere in the license agreement use it we submit that is used here in the work why you referred to the idea that you had tool why would the technology or the choir assignment or a company that own a technology or some other method in order to get that technology that blew the tape now well what about me just as you specifically about that and that and i find that to be a difficult read on that language but assuming that that's what it says are you telling me that had had all flex instead of just purchasing these these components from so came out first sought out and obtain from cover that that had they instead of just going to sell came out saying we'd like to purchase these for resale under our license they would say well we'd like to purchase these for resale but first we need a license can asking for a construction of this agreement that that's that's not only contrary to the language but frankly a little far fetched in terms of of any kind of reasonable objective if even assuming it your correct and it does apply when you acquire intellectual property rights or a license intellectual property rights the word of wired is not limited and follows immediately after the expression electronic identification systems so why are you excluding the purchase of products because the judge is that and that's the nub of the case so why  and i will confess this question will reveal my lack of business activity but i'm being very sincere i don't understand how this is supposed to work they're supposed to get a license of the technology from so why and this is tell me if i'm equally missing something but why does why does one get so keen that have the digital angel technology in your theory even the even though the apple e here designed the entire system it can acquire a transponder from somebody else unless they also designed the for ok so what you're saying is that they they have to design the entire system and they have to design the tr well at first because the products that are designed to develop electronic well let me say this if i can if i can jump ahead in the profit that was made under the rules of the success we e very term or rather what do we know about this definition we do know about this definition whether it does or does not include or refer to the literal property it certainly does not the court should be reversed we only have the stablish that that is a plausible definition under the agreement at which case it would have gone forward in the case and the judgment pleadings would have that that clause this is the clause this has electronic systems that are acquired or licensed fly off lex in effect makes licensed devices only those devices which are yes but is that so the only thing they have a right to sub license other people to make are things that that they either designed or developed or acquired rights or from from others or since those to be possible yes and what if there's a component which is not propriety proprietary it's a public domain item for which no license is thank you thank you we have we have