the case your standing here is clear and the facts presented in this matter are nearly identical to those in auk vs advanced micro devices which this court decided earlier this year identical dog well in several ways st then both cases a rise out of allegations that the plaintiffs had purchased processors manufactured by the defendants that contain defects in the way that they implement  or had terrible problems once the patches were put on you don't make any such allegations so i don't know how hawk helps you on the issue of standing well we make allegations as the plaintiff in auk that there is a reduction in performance once the patch that that testing has not i don't know i don't want to get you far off track i don't think hawk is particularly helpful to you the question is whether or not the test you did is sufficient to give rise to a plausible allegation that your devices were degraded in performance hawked there was no need for any such implication because the individuals said their devices were degraded performance also not why was the test  rd parties showed that devices applying the same mitigation experience as much as fifty percent and the testing that we conducted on the same model i phone seven was supplemental to show that that device would have experienced th same kind of slow down when those patches were applied to the reason and that those test results are relevant latest standing is because of the way the medications operate what we're alleging are patches that are computer programs that run theory is that because it's a design defect big big foreman state regulation caused by the patch really is a device specific and that's why it goes across all different devices is that it's not the argument and the pleading allegation that you're action and so as the plane is standing specifically though the i phone seven testing was merely to show that the same type of device that they had would also respond in an adverse way to the patches being applied the the te allegation the finest noticed the slowdown or where they subjectively noticed it i just think it's important to highlight that subjective notice as opposed to what we all like which is that the devices themselves actually slow down is not a requirement it disable these performance enhancing features as even to mitigate against the defective design of apple's processors would that be a claim that implicates their own rights that they could press as opposed to somebody else's been there would have been i don't think anybody's i think anybody's claiming subjective notice or the difficulty is that none of your clients allege a degradation in performance of their phone allege that they must have been degraded in performance because of this testing and because of the universe ality of the hardware and software is that fair well not exactly they do allege that their phones the difference between this and how that's why i keep going back to how somebody said hey i had problems with my phone for problems with my computer after the patch you're your individual plated don't allege any problems that they phone because of the defect they say my phone must have been degraded performance because of the news that because of all these other things that i already have is that fair and yes because the patch was designed to disable the feature that would have caused it to slow applied that it is that your argument by virtue of how it was designed and applied it all devices that apply the past would have slowed down that is correct and there are plans out metafont out of that how do we know that that slowing down was material anyway well it's material is immaterial in the sense that it disables a central feature of the device itself it's disabling performance enhancement and we have on the activity of the phone before the patches are applied and after the patches are applied and so based on those allegations and all the bull that the patch being applied is responsible for the slowdown right now there may be other causes but at this stage of is your i understand your reduction in value argument i want to ask your friend about this but i don't understand your overpayment argument these were not devices that you could bargain for apple was selling them for a  price it was like you could have said to them at a time hey i've discovered they're going to problem in and i'd like to pay you half as much you bought the device perhaps it was defective and perhaps you have a claim for that but i don't understand your overpayment or you explain it well short well i mean the reason is that you know consumers have a choice in what they buy in and they would not have been willing to pay the same amount and they know net these devices were defective but just  i'm sorry overpayment theory i'm still stuck with the problem that it seems uncontested that everybody's devices suffered from the same vulnerabilities correct not everybody in general not so the different processors manufactured by companies would think about i phone seven's could you of what smartphone from everybody at the time you bought this smart phone that didn't suffer from the same vulnerability product on the market they did not suffer from the same vulnerabilities the google report seems to say everybody suffers from the same vulnerabilities well and just if i think that what i don't know if you could just answer it was the that you don't you don't know you don't know one way or the other well is that the end of that i'm not clear on what your answer to judge what his question was yes i know that there are processors that not that are not analysis that supports the diminishing in value of the theory it's not uncommon to have regression analysis and i think part of the struggle i have with this case is that we're talking about article we standing  the by your side it is a legitimate theory in commonly used theory to show diminishing value so why doesn't that in and of itself sufficient to establish article three standing that of that and that front and again we're at this stage we don't have the regression analysis for somebody did it on the back of a napkin and it's a terrible analysis but we have to accept their allegations about it at the moment they say it is accounted for all other factors that might have affected reiss and what all those out we were left with this notion that the announcement must've until i read this case it turned out that the next day i couldn't sell it on e bay for that amount i could sell it for some number less so why isn't the diminution in value of the device not its potential to be  two to statements like representations or statements about speed or about the types of processors really the omission being correct itself that the regression is looking at that age can and might be referenced to certain types