you don't get to retract or interest unless you ever damages and the absence of the averages your main point was that the pre judgment interest was roti decide how was your main point but not wrong well right chosen interest where you understand that that's that's not good enough to make a water fine you can't have simply have one group of issues what you want to appeal which have been decided and another group of issues that you're not necessarily interested in appealing which have not been decided and call the district court's order front right you are judge jury has pointed out that there is an exception for accounting which i submit  re judgment interest as part awful well if it if that does constitute an accounting if there's more if there's not more than simply a mathematical determination of how much is owed but i take it that it was more involves as this case demonstrates thought of as a consideration of the criteria for assessing damages it is not just hiring an accountant figure out what the number is the  war on patent infringement is much more complicated than that and as this case i think exemplifies it in the extreme so i don't think that there was an issue of  as the declaration is continued he eventually approach observed that there were six hundred fifty thousand cameras or foreign share arjen already made another four hundred thousand in the works of country of origin for a first sale was the language on the shelves themselves the first thing they did is they remove all that they didn't have that effective so what the bottom decision of the facts on the warrant less than any other case the burden you should remember is on the defendant that mr bennett had had already served been subject and standards that this court applies in deciding where damages should be enhanced and i respect to submit that every one of those or most of those satisfied in this case that it is what the on the question if i could on the same point do you think that our review in an ordinary infringement action where we are the first court to review the district court which is need this discretionary decision is any different in a situation such as this where we're the second court to review the discretionary decision that was made by the bankruptcy court no your honor because i think the cases hold that you view the decision of the bankruptcy court to know and we know are you a court has said you you you don't i don't think anybody will human beings nobody ignores what other people have said but the cases seem to indicate that you do not  that both of these are they're not they have different tasks i agree that they have different tasks willfulness has the seagate tested recklessness while willful and malicious has an intent element but both of them share one common thread and that is you don't take the defendant's word that i didn't mean it i didn't know you have to look at the circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence here a one continuous series of infringements that are fair it's the same product the same methods everything is consistent the same violations continue through and the bankruptcy court issues should  cool the bankruptcy court ruled that forty percent of the cameras sold from january for from august twenty one two thousand and one through december of two thousand and three forty percent throughout the period of private in the first sale what it then did is said well only three percent for the first almost a year a little more than a year huge numbers of foreign cameras but they didn't stop using them all they did is created a little window dressing for customers benefit and off they went and unfortunately the bankruptcy court provided protection for the in french or a safe car and i think what i did i would like to see this court do is to make bankruptcy not a safe harbor for people who are this rises to the level of abuse of discretion rise to a level of to the erroneous but i think it's really an error of war because they in this case applying to these