entertainment now the second issue involves quite frankly a lot of issues that i heard judge fight say today on another issue how are we supposed to figure out how are we supposed to figure that out i'm going to address that question whether the pat help me on this discovery when you asked for documents that related to schlumberger knowledge the past is not a record in which the schlumberger representatives say that there was no question that the invention that was described with them knew about was one that they were happy to have darker parts of the and the key question is what the you in the process of agreeing about that or what happened glad you asked that we ask for that discovery of major league baseball somewhat agreed to some of that discovery the district court judge said i'm not getting any of  do we know from the record what they agreed to no no we didn't get that part of the general said no just talk and we did he say why no discovery not no reason at all invention told his boss rick smith about the invention and he told them about the complete recall at the time i discussed it that's dr ourselves project with dr smith that's dr marceau's possible is that it had to do something to do with someone local and a sporting event capturing play by play data and then that information being dispersed widely that's another way of saying broadcast it to users who could then see a simulation of the play and i recall baseball specifically and that applied to sports in general that is the invention that's a and right but it doesn't disclose how you use computers to do all what the circuitry was and whether or not that kind of circuitry might have had some ha schlumberger not in the baseball field of course but in the oil field or some other well that's gets to the issue of what dr parsons invention because after all the funny thing says any invention that relates to schlumberger  business as a side not for example if dr barsoum had an invention that had a component for example a computer under major league baseball's view that would make it related to call this a stop and call it to a point which it seems to me is the wrong designation for this issue what we're really talking about is a question of contract interpretation and should the conduct of the parties during the performance of the contract and thereafter be here on the question of contract interpretation sort of black letter contract or not really accurately characterized as a waiver or a thoughtful question it's really a invention as referring to the inventions reflected in these patents because we don't really know very clearly what schlumberger knew other than this one statement that you read on fifty two although for example this is the six thirty patent issued during the period of dr barstow's in point right what would be interesting to know whether there was a copy of the six thirty patent in the schlumberger file we don't know that very clear about the detailed knowledge shown version it's very vague now maybe the documents if you've gotten them would have been helpful in that respect but right now the record is the project is quite simply or are an observer at an event like a sporting event capturing what's happening at the end that using a computer generated symbols that information go into a database and hear that being cast overhead whose job it was was to oversee the idea and make these types of decisions and let me just let me just get this out because i think this is critical another thing that mr houston testified  to he said at the hearing that dr parcells project at least what he knew of it which i believe was the whole invention he said that that project did not relate to this business here's what he said and i'm quoting on page read it myself and said this is what i'm doing if there's any problem with this let you know and read and i discussed it and we don't see how it applies to schlumberger business next question was and did you tell fact that was one of the items that we had asked for we had asked for documents from there and we asked to take the deposition of mr houston had  limited the entire hearing to our toll so we didn't have much time unfortunately to develop the much time did you have preached with with actually with mr hughes that it was probably as you might gather from my questions i have a concern here about the process that the district court follows solving the addition he denied documentary discovery which your client apparently agreed to at least agree to some of it he denied depositions of the key witnesses and he limited the length of the trial that you know isn't there to do that first  rights under those patterns doesn't that strongly suggest that you believe that there had been no coverage of the agreement of those facts and that under the circumstances you are you you set for i still think that the not immediately clear the question is how did the parties interpret those provisions for thirty years that those contract provisions were in force if in fact the record the record which show that they actually had the patent that they knew what the scope of the patent was because it's isn't it isn't it isn't the plaintiffs here in title to discovery from the files to under oath so i'm just saying i'm just saying somebody who goes through their files and makes a good faith attempt to see what's in the files and then testifies i look in the files truthfully that's one thing but if i give you a subpoena records copies of the patents and contemporaneous with the time they were thought let's assume that the record also showed that noted on those passengers was a signature by someone in a position of authority slumbers rationing these panels do not relate to our business and we have no interest in let's assume that was in the record and let's assume that the trial judge then had construed the circumstances and said well that evidence says to me that the contemporaneous evidence of the parties as they construed this agreement these all this attention fell outside the agreed in the trial judge would you have appealed it still has to meet the requirements actually in the contract of relating to the business absolutely and the so so it's not an automatic assignment and left that stablish and being the situation it's  requesting and he testified page one forty three he was asked in an effort to prepare for the testimony of the spider today did you go through and try to find all the documents that are describe of the first documents produced in the case that no i asked when the agreement for between schlumberger and the defendant was produced that that the actual employment agreement was produced in the spring they had  a mr carty a testified that he was in negotiations with major league baseball for seven months the agreement was actually signed i believe in april or early may and it was not even