struggling with this i mean if we agree with you that his construction is indefinite i'm not sure that your alternative construction one is right for two would not also be contested well i think your so based on laird we would argue that it's pretty clear to someone skilled we are trying to make a five six millimeter bullet it would be pretty clear as to where the bounds were you would know if you had more contact area or less contact area than level and either caliber and so we were left with twenty six candidates for five five six fifteen for seven six two and that really is the epitome of indefinite specifically says that the plaintiff we can only run your money judgments for money presently doing knowing from the united states plaintiff argues that would be a wasted effort to require it to bring suit for future infringement that mended that at least fifty percent of the way that which is part of the previous will be removed and that was part of the  end continuing saga of taking the lead out of virtually everything because it became something identified as a known carcinogen and the army became concerned because they were under supreme lot of pressure by state environmental agencies to closer or at least clean up all the firing ranges in the united states preceding that truth ruse means that a bullet hitting a target is called a soft target we're really means no limit that if it goes through clean through enters and leaves the body would resolve the infringement issue met applying to an accused product or there is no infringement when something says that you need something between a and b and the construction for the the jack at the interface in the first place means you need to hold the line as a traitor and for behind this to rotate together and stay together in flight once the projectile leaves the firing weapon that means it needs to be over the jo a full metal jacket is cover well i don't i would suggest is that the that isn't so and in fact the judge got it i believe exactly right when he says it it must be not just on the well it has to be around around the middle because it's got a hold of two things together the rotation and flight or you don't have a you don't have a weapon and you don't have a boat however prevents the the essence or one of the essence of this invention which is that the board and the interface breaks up when it strikes a target and for little jack it doesn't for the most  the complete entire recovery is to be had for the for the infringer now i've forgotten what it was the court or the surround that raised it with this notion of validity presumably having been upheld and the infringement having been to at that point will get from the army the number of units so warped by by the rules the rate that we're measuring with not one penny beyond the end of this trial is part of any judgment that will come only if the government continues selling infringing rounds and this is precisely what i believe a lot of finger at the notion of well if there is no no treatment of the continuing sell of the identical infringing products that means i s while acknowledging that you can also have authority implied because of your position in the job that you do but there was no application well  the the emphasis of his argument was not what there are a contracting agency in the form of dean or campion or the other people who signed the contract but let me ask you what do you think as i understand i recall the standard applied by the at fort benning in georgia here in the directorate which was going to support the troops in the products they had in the ammunition that they had and his job was to de worthy of it then he should do something about it now to do something about it was his own testimony that he had he dealt with the industry representatives looking for things that needed to be done there was nothing more important than getting rid of this board which is which government people had been unable to do for thirteen years at that point and that's a lot of cash  casualties using a bullet that people don't have confidence in and maybe a lot of the people saying a little bit longer behind the protection because they didn't trust the emission and fire so he met with these people and his job was to find not only looking to buy from the shelf and look what can i buy now but he was asking these companies who are now what's on the planning boards what would you have come and come along here that maybe we should expedite or you can use to solve our problems that was his job to find out what was coming as well as what was on contradicted testimony in here this tucker came up in was doing the same job for socom special operations he was asked again and again was his testimony five times during his time he had this if that's what dean testified to for fewer than five i'm not sure what that means but and he signed this one and he signed this one because there required him to write requirements and to facilitate discussions with the industry how are you supposed to have discussions about stuff that industry has come up with that may or may not be good for the government without sort of getting an m b a i think what senator carl levin testified to is people would come in and tell them that this was proprietary and he would say i understand and they would show the star of or the materials or whatever to them anyway and then what happens they just either send them to somebody else well as they could make you decide you know what i really want to sell to the army i'm going to go ahead and give you a presentation of what i can share with you right it maybe they have to go back to the army and say we want to well i think i would say that there is i think it's a relative small number when you consider that he said he spent a large portion of his time meeting weekly with industry over two years well did he say in the end did he identify instances a large number of  rake in all of our cases and we have a lot of government cases and we operate under the assumption that unless proven otherwise the government is assumed to have presumed to operate in good faith doesn't that good faith extend to this was not just some nothing wrong with being a g s three but this was not a g s three set sitting behind a reception desk this was a person of some way doing clearly the government had to have given him the job to evaluate this stuff so it doesn't seem kind of outrageous of our of line to accept that he thinks he has the authority and he does and to take that to face value and he's willing to sign it pretty well i think navigate through the government if nobody has authority i don't know if that question's really been presented here in the sense that i'm sure it's possible in other parts of the department of defense or in other situations with research and development agreements that someone does have express authority to enter into these nobody really i think trying to get to what's bothering me but what was really what's really bothering me is i think it's perfectly it's perfectly reasonable assumption from the outsider to assume that this it seems to me that if one actually lived on that and lost something that's pretty problematic i don't know that it's you can say that it's unreasonable for person to assume that if this hot fairly high level person who's got the responsibilities to look at the stuff on behalf of the government is willing to sign an n d a i can rely on the well it's harsh as it may seem a servant instances the rule is that you have to ascertain that you're dealing with somebody with the proper authority neither is the law on that colonel colonel being was he contacted dana november of two thousand and four and say the government put out a does anybody have a bullet we need one band india being said we don't have one why don't you send me your four which happened the very next day and then between november fifth and the meeting itself which i think was february seventeenth dean had the the and i think that under the circumstances of his title and his surroundings that the meeting was held at fort benning and in fact the result that happened here the government could not make this cause themselves an outsider couldn't did presented to the government the government readable they were very proud of themselves they found the patent application never mind that they derived unless it was signed in he he had every right as far as i've been saying here to believe that everything happens as it should've happened from the nobody can receive a pitch or an explanation of something that was of great value would be very distressing and in fact this one works this one solves a problem that  r arrangement where the proposal for marx was read by the people who are running the effort  to to come up with a design and in fact were they couldn't do it for seventeen years before they managed to do it and some grants adopting the design there is an uncontested finding in this case that they cop saying i'm going to take every element of the claims i'm going to find that element somewhere and then i'm going to say it's obviously combine these ten references that they use  he came up with the parties were twenty cents around and once around he said under those circumstances a baseline really is five percent and then he cited something from learn fighters and the preceding months it has been the subject of awards because the government was very proud of themselves it is in the services or patton it has been subject to the pre order said this is the best rifle ring ro ever made and against all of that to say that it will require much more refinement and therefore i'm going to reduce it under that section chisholm site relying on factor a nobody contest the fact that zero had to be done at that date nobody contested things that the government is very proud of it's of the quote it's incredible and