and baker is a hay former and has been for some time he's familiar with tractors a rape's they were all the elements of the three fifty four patent the there are six at and here there's frontage  he says pay fifteen zero time i just took a reconstruct what somebody might do and so we have this unusual case for bring somebody in that actually built one at the same time after saying a loose device the same motivation that maybe it's a little bit like the case you just heard or which was not dying it might have been done by somebody who was so far into the rocket science and that those obviousness and really i would say it's less than half of them where the court actually makes a finding and or articulate for anyone on the exact level of skill in the art i'm not saying that it isn't important people present evidence on it but in a case like this the technology being what it is couldn't couldn't the district court figure it out based on the prior art references that were disclosed face time the enormous number of witnesses that they brought forward and in conjunction with their anticipation kate i mean do they have to actually stand up and explicitly argue to the court what the level of skill is or isn't it enough when they present so many different people talking about this and that are actually people using uncorroborated testimony because people are interested i got to tell you i give kudos to these witnesses in that they didn't come in and say i know it was two years old they said it was rusty if you like these are very honest people who are testifying i don't get to make the has to be something to cooperate with evidence you can't i can't just come in here excited oh every pattern out there is invalid because i saw something twenty years ago what about the fact that they had you know i'm team people who each think they fall from things like that i mean  fame thing at the fleet but why go through that sort of active corroboration where there's so many different individuals playing but you know there was three witnesses that testified and all three of those have been third if a preliminary injunction would be granted any time there's the belief that person's going to keep doing it and kind of undermine the notion of the day e bay sort of look to the four factors and one of the factors is the person  every time he sells when he goes in the hole further and further he testified that he can't satisfy the judgment he has no assets to pay that damages that were awarded and that he earlier testified that even if the district court joined him he was going to abide by  issue of damages the court awarded twelve and a half percent royalty based on i think judge moore you alluded to the previous licenses we had six licenses a forty five hundred dollars a modified radix and only sixty one kits the kids sell for about sixty five hundred apiece that somebody are known to rake in they can buy the kit and the court of blended those two this is the price came up with the damages based on the difference the average of sixteen thousand versus fifty five hundred for the kid in ten thousand seven hundred fifty multiply that by one hundred thirty to come up with the damages in this in this case difference between this case and the other cases in the other case involves federal rules of civil procedure which have to be very very rigid this case the consideration one of three is by its nature an equitable balance between a monopoly in hindsight