think your honor may please the court google's petition for mandamus presents the question whether computer sitting on a shelf in a rd party facility in the eastern district of texas is a regular and established place of business for purposes of  statute was also an act and that appears to assume that there be an employee or agent at the place of business and perhaps that was contemplated here for purposes of the venue statute that example or the virtual grocery store or yes they wouldn't qualify as a person for service of process because the whole notice purpose of service a process could before my service on the machine but what about for venue purposes the robotic equivalent of the person within the venue statute or not our position is that a purely robotic movement would not be sufficient in other words you have to look at the text and anything to she would not these fish well into machines of slightly different circumstance because there you would potentially have employees or agents present servicing the machine and we think that's a crucial difference so what you need is a regular and established place you need a regular presence from an employee which is to say regular recurring steady as this court said in prayer that not necessarily an employee doesn't necessarily have to be an employee the language is agents it doesn't have to be directly employed by the defendant but there does have to be somebody regularly there in other words you can imagine an robotic situation like say a laundromat which is a self service a kind of a store where they're not employees present we're carrying out the business of cleaning one's laundry itself service facility but there will be employees there who are running the we're running the store we're servicing the machines and doing things like engines is your problem because we hear they're the host on behalf of google is servicing the machine so w is basically right answering the door of those customers who would like to get the content that google has stashed for perfectly good business reasons on this server taking their request to the server through equipment that it is required by the agreement to maintain and then sending the request that we see the requested information to the customer why is that not acting as an agent for google's and is this supplying content from that server at that space i guess is that where the agreement is is not just equipment but space so so the question we think is whether the people who are there carrying out the ai is peace business count as google's age and not within the computers in some sense count of the nation because after all a computer is just a machine and we don't think that qualifies as a place of business under the statute so the question was an entire server  from supposing it was an entire server farm would that change your position yes absolutely for an entire server farm then we would on potentially the real property underlying that farm there would be employees there servicing machines of the very different circumstances let me take you into the future supposing that server farm was incorporeal that is that all the computations that are done are done with life without machinery and yet it functions as a server farm does that change your position no your honor position is still that you need our position is that you need an employee present rights of the extent to survive and were one hundred percent automated way in the future this would be your robotics there would not be an such business and we think that's the tax and it requires an employee or agent present the fact that a ploy or agent is present that there is a physical place of business but all that the employees do is service  cook is that is they have sufficient is that regular as to how much places you might you know to some nice questions about what regularly carrying out the employees are you getting it is nice question but as our position is that as long as that employee is regularly the carrying out some piece of the business that is enough and some piece of versus an equipment is enough yes it could be in some circumstance or it servicing the equipment is enough just like in the laundromat you would have a place of business even though those employees are not carrying out the business in the sense of doing the laundry but servicing the machine so that's enough to get back to judge directors question about why these human agents of the eyes before these are not agents as contemplated by the statute again i think looking to the to the details of the agreement is helpful obviously again we think this is wait nobody's ever claimed that there are agents the court can leave this question of what kind of agency relationships suffices for another day or two or if we thought it was relatively can tonight mandamus with instructions to further consider the venue question in light of exploration of facts not fully explored that's one conceivable basis would be yes one conceivable disposition would be to say this is the legal framework you need real property present and you need agents now we think the real property point is dispositive it's on its own we don't think remand is necessary building set aside for purpose or quarters out of which business is conducted let me take you to the other way which i want to ask you your friend on the other side and that is and says instead of that one box or you have that one box but instead of google using it three small companies are sharing and they don't even know they are sharing where it is that place i think that's exactly the point you're under and we would know whose place of business that is and we think it would be absurd to claim that three companies are operating a place of business out of a single box and honestly this case is not that far from there if you look at the photographs of the rooms with the servers there are hundreds upon hundreds of servers and shelf after shelf after shelf and of  presumably each one of those servers could conceivably be a place of business you have hundreds of places of business operating out of that single room explore this lease question a little bit so i guess i was thinking of a farmer's market or a flea market and let's say it's not just every sunday it's every other day make it every day but i don't think it matters and you know the stamp seller or the bagel seller has an agreement with whoever is hosting it that i'm going to get this stall and maybe places we think that would probably fit within the language of cray and the reason for that is it's ultimately a kind of real property it's an area of land in other words it's a reserve space where people can stand and carry out the business of the defendant another words one  piece of the relevance of the service statute is that we think it requires agents present another piece of it is that it shows the type of place the congress and in my head if they if there was a specific shelf that they contract had to have their servers on in a particular room that would be sufficient and the problem here is that there is no specificity about where the server is now we would disagree with that your honor we don't think a shelf is a part of a building in the sense that this court used that phrase in cray we think elf is different from the table of the market yes because a table of flea market again it's going to be generally speaking an area around which people can congregate and interact with customers the shelf is just a shelf holding a piece of equipment and we think when the court used the phrase building or part of a building it essentially meant something that functions like you want to distinguish between fixtures and non fixtures we don't want to get into the minutiae of state real property law we use the phrase real property and it's and it's somewhat colloquial sense which is to say it needs to be a building or a part of a building set aside so we don't think a light switch or a fixture as your honor said would technically qualify as a place of business even though it's within a building we think in this instance you have to be you have to  where's that consumers want at a particular spot regularly and people get it from that spot the fact that it is extremely small and doesn't require you know a physical hand attached to a body with physical feet standing near it to get it why should that not because we think the language is clear regular and established place of business i mean it may be that this equipment we don't think on the facts of this case it is as exemplified by the fact that these machines are taken off and taken offline the fact that this might be important to delivering content to customers is not going to be dispositive because it's just equipment that carries it out it's the internet who wants who wants to get it that's right out of the ip has to plug it in but we don't think that changes it from fundamentally being a piece of equipment to being a place of business it's still just a piece of equipment like a cable box sitting in your home after all a user in one's home has to plug a cuba box into the wall for it to operate but the general company owns the cable box and just by virtue of that little activity it doesn't convert the cable box in someone's home into a place of business so you still have this requirement of a regular are the implications for the government's various trade positions relating to non physical trade property that is intellectual property insurance and so on where there's no there's no this is all export of goods from the united states and yet it considered highly important so we're just asking the court to interpret this phrase regular and established place of business in the context of this very particular law which as the supreme court has said was passed for a specific purpose to as a restrictive measure to narrow or limit patent venue and in the context in juxtaposition with the service action so we don't think the unique statutory context of this law will necessarily have  ramifications for for other other circumstances we don't think the court should be concerned about that but getting back to this this shelf point that your honor i think there are two there are two fundamental points the st is that the shelf is not a building a shelf it's not a regular place of business in the way that that phrase was used incorrectly and we can see that both from the phrase place of business and the way that created find that phrase we can see it when we broaden the lens and look at the phrase regular and established place of business the word establish suggests again real property something more than just a fixed you're in a building you know that doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory way of analyzing and to to a large extent it's what they meant and he came ninety seven dollars about what constitutes conducting business and it looks as though dealing with customers would be conducting a business that looks as though they contemplated that every manufacturing do you think for example an eight hundred and ninety seven they contemplated the railroad track room through a state and there were no stations or no visible offices and that the only workers of the r track running through a state is just the railroads equipment it's what allows the railroad operate but it's not a place of business as that phrase was understood what they're not dealing with customers that's selling things to customers within the stay it's a number of factors so it's you're not going to have you're not going to regularly folks there servicing that equipment so that's the railroad have a real property interest it would probably to have an easement or something like that so that's just goes to show you that having real property is not a sufficient condition we think it's a necessary condition but we think you have to look at it is this a regular and established place of business is this a building or a structure from which business is carried out and we don't know what is business that's what i'm asking you the the  place can be satisfied by leasing real property but what kind of business is to be conducted using that real property with the statue so your honor is as you pointed out obviously interacting with customers is going to be business carrying out an analog business is going to be a business and we don't think that digital business is necessarily excluded from the statute but we do think it's excluded is digital business on its own in other words digital business per se and that's just  means so so crazy said you cannot just have a virtual space that's all i mean by that a computer to the extent i wasn't even sure quite with what that means i mean if of course virtual space is a physical space there is a physical space at  the cable into syllabi in the suddenly facility some business is being conducted from that space called the space in the agreements why isn't it google's so your honor we  i don't understand those words yeah there is physical space with a physical piece of equipment on it business is being conducted out of the machine at that physical space and it's there in order to save various d costs and time the time of the customers and costs and the transmission and so that they you know the game player that the videos that google says are very popular will get to customers without you know four hundred thousand  transmissions with transmission costs there's a physical space where somebody is conducting business maybe both the i ask me and google but the relationship between the content supplier google and the customers sounds like google cable box in your home that is occupying physical space it is conducting business in the sense that the cable company is using it to get television into your home but we don't think every cuban box in the united states can be a place of business and on this point of ritual vs but what if the cable box were this was essentially open to the entire neighborhood making requests to get movies and and and other things and it seems to me it would be a place of business for i mean whoever is you know responding to the request for the content i don't think that's necessarily true your honor and i think that the example that you just laid out is very similar to the cell tower example and the  example is it and that i do think that this is a hard distinction to make but i guess that such storage considered to transmission which may be a phrase that you recognize from the communications storage act is distinguished from remote storage services under the act it may not be the most precise distinction in the world i gather there's litigation about things of being on one side or the other but it's a kind of common sense distinction which we've put aside the whole class of cases about centrally your transmission facilities even if the facilities have hops in them that have truly temporary storage so that the usual repairs but this isn't that great this is a warehouse with large capacity but in a small space case you don't need a lot of space for a large capacity so we don't think this distinction is material for the reason that it just goes to the functioning of the equipment not whether the equipment is a place of business now you've analogize service through a warehouse and there's a certain intuitive appeal to that analogy but that's just to say that servers function like traditional places of business not that they are traditional places of business and like a return to this virtual point how much how much how much of your point you know your refrain kind of depends on the premise that the place the only possible place here is the equipment as opposed to the place where the equipment somewhere can't convert equipment into a place a business or every office and any piece of equipment could potentially depends what's being done with the equipment at that place if it's being if it's being used to store the wares that the owner of the equipment will supply from that location to those d who ask for it why is that not why is that the place that the equipment sits not a place of business and following ohms law or moore's law when when and then not too distant future the entire server farm is in that one small box is that change or your response to the hype will taking those in reverse that wouldn't change our response hype of the reason that this court gave in big commerce which is that this court has been presented over and over again with the argument that modern business realities have changed and that the statute should therefore be interpreted quote flexibly but again and again it is said you have to adhere to the language of the statute this is a quote from big commerce we cannot ignore the requirements of the statute merely because different requirements may be more suitable to a more modern business environment so we think the fact that technology may develop in such a way that equipment grows more and more sophisticated and more and more powerful does not change the fact that fundamentally it is still equipment and not a place of business now getting back to this point about whether equipment can function as a place of business no know whether the place on which the equipment sits can function as a place of business right so so there are two responses at the st is on the level of law which is that we don't think a we don't think a shelf on which a piece of equipment is sitting qualifies as a place within the meaning of crate and that's just a common sense point and a plain language point that an established place of business requires an establishment requires a building requires an area set aside and we don't think a shelf counts and if a shelf didn't know the shelf is set aside one selected several local cable and then google can say do not move this unless we equipment is that if the host wants to move it there's no reason they can't if you want to move it just tell google and there are also services that right they're doing routine service and maintenance of the equipment because it's sitting there in there and there has be an off and that it's just a matter of plugging it in and turning it on and on this point about whether the shelves are google's place of business again i think i think looking at the language of the service agreement is very helpful we think as a as a legal matter  shelf can't jump but if you look at the language of the service agreement the equipment is in this is imperative one of the agreement posted in the host facilities so it's very clear that this is the ice piece facilities not google paragraph eight on page two of the service agreement says the host is quote responsible for physical access to the equipment and google's only granted access if the agreement is terminated just like it but about the opening sentence of schedule and the host will provide the following facilities to google for occupancy and use those occupying that facility so we think you have to look at the language of what's actually conveyed in the agreement and all that it is is that the highest fees will put these servers on rackspace and we don't think that any meaningfully in any meaningful sense converts the place of business into google's and if you want to sort of colorful illustration of this in the in the seven case you'll notice there are photographs of these items be facilities and the server rooms in the record those were obtained not because  google walked into its own place of business and took photographs it's because seven serve a rd party subpoena on these i excuse to gain access to their facilities google couldn't get in it doesn't have physical access and so you know i said i thought there was something in the agreement that at least indirectly makes clear that does have having access i guess it's sort of the the negative pregnant of section four of schedule and it says there are other  google like stores using it that that host has to ensure that the space provided to google is that access to that space is permitted only to authorized accessing pieces of its network without knowing who it is but that's very different to granting google physical access to the space and again if you go through the agreement we don't think that access is is is given and again there's one point in the agreement where physical ac is granted and that's in paragraph six on page two through this agreement and google's only granted access there if the agreement is terminated and google needs to recover its equipment and can i just double checked and you are not this time making the argument it please the court the cash server in isolation and let's assume that the shelf here is a place and a physical place that you need and let's assume based on a reading of maintenance of equipment conducting business within the meaning of the statute that seems to me not at all clear that that's what's contemplated by  property within the jurisdiction is sufficient to put conducting business st of all the assumption that you would have to have people in the st place in order to have a place or the statute refers a business reasonable establishment but i just ask you to for so purposes of this discussion assume that i read the service statute as on a plating that there would be individuals conducting business people conducting business within the jurisdiction that may or may not be correct but let's just assume that for a moment then are they conducting business when they merely service a call i think that depends on the facts of the case perhaps but i also think that the mere service of equipment and because of that relationship there that reveals that there really should be no requirement that says that you have to have support personnel google actually uses the word support personnel and i want to be clear under this agreement we disagree with the access that google has to this place for example the agreement reverse were st two of when do you sit you're you're getting away from a hypothetical the be time to explore these other things but under my hypothetical my assumptions is the fact that agents individual people acting as agents service equipment is that conducting business i would say that to the extent that the court imposes a requirement that there be persons there that ties from the idea that you would have to have somebody there to accept service of process perhaps that maintaining the equipment they conduct in business so yes i would say yes what that they may not be themselves conducting business but they are enabling the business that is conducting so you're in order for a machine to conduct that business as was noted by my my friend you would have to have personnel available to enable that to happen i don't remember mr schmitz what he said on the bottom line for the  the laundromat situation whether that was in or out but is that kind of what we're talking about here that somebody and presumably they're not exchanging money so there's a poem that point out you know just by machine but they're there to  actually conducting the business then servicing becomes pretty important if if the equipment is actually conducting all the business as google's does in this case then keeping that equipment going is a very  your position is that having that server running in the eastern district up of texas is doing business in basement is it yes yes with some of the other no people involved at all well there certainly continues to provide the service not as fast but everybody in texas still gets their whatever is popular video or dad or whatever is it doing business in tech these industries at texas or not i would say so because the test looks at whether you have a place that is a regular in the stablished place of business but that doesn't mean that that place has to continually conduct the business so in the example of a service outage you might have a period of time where that place is not servicing the local customers but you still have a place that's a regular in the stablished place of business you look at what is turned off those those forward servers and these are in district of texas are they no longer doing business in the eastern district of texas i think that's correct i believe that is correct but if there was no servers there and they're not continue it's not a temporary on which i would say absolutely so what is it your position that google  access the server i do do it on a weekly basis at least and electronically interact with that server image the server in the agreement there is an allowance for google to dispatch the service evidence we have is the affidavit of illicit mccallion or something that says we in fact we have it or you're sure maybe slightly more precisely i think he said he was not aware that we ever had that's correct and that's what they did their service of ads and video data from that location and it's actually cash there so it's stored there in the system are there purposefully take my hypothetical and i asked your friend supposing instead  some little computer companies that are offering a small amount of data in them and that that dad the service provider says i'm going to put five of these on one box does that change things it's certainly good yes because if you're analyzing it under all three of the great factors here google reserved it the entire server it owned the server and as this court sends e t e ownership of the equipment can be an important factor in determining whether  these are google locations these edge nodes or location additionally and and just just to make clear it's it says that basically to the i s p s the customers don't do it i guess it's on their website yes it's a publicly accessible what is that part of any kind of this is even the right terminology advertising that google does to customers i believe they're actually telling customers we are bringing the da located so they're identifying those as there are regular in the samples places of business so i do believe that yes and in that you would have to look at did the individual companies say that's our regular unestablished place of business i think that's what it will box analogy doesn't work there's no cable company out there in the united states saying that the homes of each one of its subscribers they're going down  cases is this is the line yes yes they're not they're not saying those are our regular in the stablished places of business and representing that to the public that would be ridiculous in contrast so it's absolutely the case that machines can and do conduct business under the american invents act section eighteen c of that act congress said for purposes of this statute or two hundred b that a not be the regular mr abbott's place of business but it's actually not what's right only at the c b s yeah this is a sort of exactly so i think the implication there is that if you're not asserting it cover business method patent then that can qualify and then made that might just be a kind of belt and suspenders thing where he said these sorts of you know and manned largely unmanned places are uncertain for for certain purposes and therefore you know the statute is basically for a particular industry and therefore we're going to just make absolutely sure so i can i'm not sure that how much implication you get out of well i w out because what they're saying they're not saying categorically that a machine cannot constitute a regular or an established place of business to the contrary they're saying it to him but we're going to say that if you're asserting a cover business lot so what do you do at this is not to be very precise question there you know overhanging this is a quite legitimate concern that it is not part of the task to  just a perhaps outmoded notion from the eight hundred and ninety seven dollars statute to changes in the real world and if they're going to be adjustments that's for congress said that you should impose an additional requirement that virtual business or electronic business cannot be business that's nowhere in the statute the statute does not turn on the supposing that there is a as swarm intelligence covering the entire globe where are they that that's certainly a difficult question to analyze under that under the crate yes st i would look to the physical place is there a physical place everywhere so well they're like the scarlet pimpernel so there would have to be something that ties it to a physical place i think and without knowing that i couldn't tell you whether or not that there is a place that's a regular misstep which place of business but let's assume the place was in fact in the eastern district of texas and there was a quick mint there that enable this nano clout to occur then you would want to see other factors ok did google say this is our national cloud and we located our equipment in the eastern district of texas that they publicly disclosed that so i think you'd want to know other factors  could make that determination it seems like that would not be a place especially something that's in the air it's a theory well it's hard to characterize that as a physical location by its definition or what about transmission lines between that and this of the physical place is the structures on which the transmission lines are running so the difference between your hypothetical and this is that google specifically located costs possible that those those places are not god given so if it's just merely communications transmission cray says that's not enough of you would have to know  though it's done with physical structure that we so what's the difference between that situation and this one so if you have you have to have a physical structure and then you would have to have   st of all we have a space that google has reserved to itself i don't understand the difference and under under my hypothetical the a p and the lines are that are the electrical lines are built on structures the would read that those are not regular travelers places of businesses i ask you what's the difference between that and this situation so i would say that if that situation has all the characteristics that we have identified as being important repair people what's the difference i don't see a difference there but in each case if that's that parties equipment and they've established control over that equipment in statute of course but it assuming that we're talking about the exercise of control and what the ramifications are from that exercise of control i think in a very high level it's not materially different between let's assume that we we think that having transmission lines physically located than these structures within the state does not constitute having a radio on established places let's just assume that is this situation different from and if so how i would say yes in the hell is that they they have physical property there we're just not talking about a conduit in my pathetically as physical property they're storing data there it's a data warehouse they're actually storing large volumes of information locally they were really saying is conducting business it is doing things but not not transmitting things i think that's correct in that that distinction has actually been made in server cases by some district courts or that's the hard case as well yes well and cup said look if you're just transmitting data to the cloud and you don't identify that as your server space you don't own the equipment and it's to merely a conduit between users in the cloud they said that's not a regular an established place of business and so i think there are there are differences there and that's why it's dangerous for this court to establish a one size fits all rule for the same reason that in rent slayer you have walkers in the courtyard agree that providing some clarity in this area would be useful to everybody i'm not saying that what i'm saying is it's inappropriate for th to reach out in a mandamus situation and to say that there's been a usurpation of judicial power in part because as this court soundly did when it looked at this case just a little over a year ago it said we're going to wait and see if it  issue of national importance i would say absolutely not if this is affected primarily google and primarily only in the eastern district of texas can i ask a procedural question is the we we were to deny mandamus just as a procedural matter is this issue over and done or because it was a motion to dismiss you know usually with motions so usually with motions to dismiss  right to to deny them doesn't end the issue there can be summary judgment there can be a trial but is this one of these motions to dismiss in which essentially this was the opportunity to present facts the fact trying to have been made and the answer has been given we are not argument that suddenly and cable one are agents of google by perhaps not having asserted that on the motion to dismiss if the issue on venue d was still for that to be one of the check boxes that we have to check off there has to be some rule of law that says that you have to show proof people there you actually have to show agents so absent that for us to actually meet the requirement that is yet to be articulated as such in the law i would say you can't we can't have waived that but there is sufficient evidence in the record that from which the district court found that google is directing the personnel of the i as people they have to have step by step directions before they any of google servers before they tighten the screw so i don't believe that issue is waived i also think that for most purposes it is now concluded subject to for example a rule twelve c type motion so i don't think it's necessarily the last word but i do think that we've had the  venue determination i will say there was no hearing actually in this instant case instead the court relied upon what the court had previously done in the seven that works so there was not an entirely new hearing that was not any discovery in this case and said we relied upon what it done before judicial efficiency but i do think that it would be to answer the court's procedural question should this court now impose new requirements or new clarification's to the venue statute i do think it would be appropriate to remain in the case back to the district or to allow the district court just as this court didn't  those and to consider those in the life of its venue determination because it could and there's just question transfer the case or could dispense or could also find that ok i'm going to consider that and i'm going to find  invested i don't think do google actively does anything in other words there's no evidence of any employee or agent of google in the decoration of your honor was talking about being present in the in the district now there are other employees i'm  so what do you do in the eastern district i think google i mean i think again i have an answer in mind but i want to i think i think you need to you know you need a less abstract subject to that verb i think and what google does in the district will depend on what the subject of that verb is i think when you look at the service statute the subject of that verb has to be employees or agents in the district and there's no evidence of a google employee or here to say provide information customers that is one aspect of google's business of course we don't think that's its main or it's only it's only business but that is one aspect of what us throwing conducted in the eastern district when you until you left google users yes google users receive information through that through the google network in the eastern district of texas that is correct but just because equipment is involved in that transmission does not make a regular established place of business and again i think the transmission line hypothetical perfect hypothetical perfectly illustrates this we have the submitted of seventeen companies in the high tech inventors alliance talking about how this is impacting them if you look at page twelve no three in that brief there are tons of suits in the eastern district of texas involving equipment based there is google itself as a result of the seven decision is now fending off the new motions that are relying on fiber optic cable that google uses in the district or cell towers that google uses in the district so this is a very real problem and the need for guidance i think is there were any of the other district court cases a sever case but otherwise no server corrects well that the very st case and that footnote in the end of his brief is a case against netflix which does rely on the presence of servers in the district so this is very much a real problem google is certainly not the only company that has servers in the district the only distinction that my friend ultimately was able to point to between transmission lines in this piece of equipment is that this piece of equipment stores rather than simply is a pass through for data but we don't think that that  distinction can possibly be relevant under the statute this just goes to the functioning of the equipment not whether or not it is an established place of business it's hard to see how the storage of data makes something an establishment providing information isn't your principal business what is gathering information i mean it's obviously an important piece of our business i'm not appear to represent what google's main or principal business is i know what i want to know what they do in the eastern district i mean that if your business is gathering information that's different and providing information because then you're taking data out of that eastern district you're on and i just i don't think this distinction goes to whether or not transmission even transmission some incidental servers attached to the their routers it's something longer than that great well it is if it's so so i think what that means is a youtube video that gets cash is not temporary in the same sense that you know a large warehouse of goods would not temporary because thats changed that so that if that were that were it is not really doing anything except to suggest this is a little bit like transmission which doesn't sound quite right i think that's right in a metaphorical sense your honor but i want to get back to this point about virtual vs real business so so and a retailer sells goods through the internet if i access the retailers website on my home i'm looking at a computer it is a physical thing and it seems a lot like a place of business it's functioning like a place of business it's a virtual store front but that does not mean that the retailer has a place of business in my home because it's just a virtual place of business and we think the exact same analysis would apply to a server metaphorically in certain ways it stores data that seems again metaphorically like it is a warehouse but it's just a ritual warehouse and we know  of actual content but again we know from kray that a virtual space is not enough right so any virtual space is going to be instantiated in circuitry just like in the in the retailer example in my home that store is going to be an index that tells you what you have available to you contact is not otherwise it would take for ever to download even the you know the front page but i don't take my friend to be saying circuitry of a computer in a physical way in the person's home but that is just a virtual place of business and we think that's plainly insufficient under prey i think it's rather in the question yeah i want to finish up on my long question and that is when you gather information from customers which is part of your business you agree how does that get passed back to go it goes through this or i'm not aware there's nothing in the record that i'm aware of on that point your