prohibited h p components from from selling from producing and selling an identical cap and plug to the public now then went and did that it's sold its product in sync in violation of that agreement but i must i must point out judge that the district court did not rule on the issue of liability so the it immediately went to damages and said there had been no damages and product by in sync and it hasn't had an established history by that time of selling these products predictive measure of the future volume of sales so it didn't matter that he didn't have exact numbers as to how many products in sync itself sold he in the past he did have numbers that he had sold for example one hundred thousand units of these products to a company back which was another distributor of applied materials product products so under his universe you could take that one hundred thousand units sales number from one thousand nine hundred six and you could project into the future now he didn't do that r it's not necessary to do that under kids universe he could have used other numbers those other numbers being previous sales to another distributor who purchased the product so therefore when the district court said that there was declaration by the by are from instinct that instinct was not going to purchase any more product from your client there was there was a judge but there was also evidence there was also i think deposition type testimony that that employee of instinct whose name is darryl seaver had and that testimony is the testimony of mr worth time or who said that she had indicated that they could in fact reverse engineer this product reverse engineering have to do with the would no longer need to buy the product from general components so it first wanted to determine whether h t could do that only once it made that determination did it make its decision to cease buying the product from general components and begin buying it from each it would seem to me irrelevant regardless judged on page eleven of the district judges it was an instinct employee you indicated that they would no longer that instinct would no longer purchase their products from general components implication being if it could be reverse engineered we will then cease purchasing the product from general components and we will begin to purchase the product from h p components and it seems no coincidence to me judge that it was exactly at the same well what other reason could there be for the question today is whether the district court properly found that appellant general components fail to point to specific facts showing loss net profits to a reasonable degree of certainty the resolution of this issue begins and ends with general components was telling that they stop selling and ammo began selling fortunately the undisputed evidence shows that lost profits cannot be shown with reasonable certainty because the undisputed evidence shows  facts are fatal to general components damages claim the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from cyber is under mr savage under speedy declaration is that general components would not have suffered any loss profit damages since afraid of that evidence we're ready to tackle it head on but in fact in looking at this evidence i was reminded of the commercial from the one nine hundred eighty s when i was growing up for a wendy's fast food chain the where's the beef commercial because you look even if you consider this evidence you say to yourself where's the look directly at each piece of evidence offered for the first time on appeal first off let me premise all the statements with it doesn't matter because the case was premised on sales to unstick so if we look at past sales we still have to have a customer of self in the future was absent there's no economic or financial data there's no profit or loss statements there's no balance sheet there's no general ledger there's no one else's net profit so mentioned there's no income statements at the very best giving all possible  as a district court properly thousands the answer is no your honor asked a question about the impact of the applied provable let's look at that as well for the first time up on appeal again general components state that a large company applied materials who all heard it was going to prove the product and was going to start possibly purchasing it interestingly though if we look at the evidence in support of that argument it's found an expert record eleven  procedure fifty sixty requires specific facts to be raised in the opposition brief this court made that clear in the carman decision in carman the court found and i quote a lawyer me easily show the judge in the opposition the evidence they want constituted more than thirty documentaries more than thirty documentaries and on the district court general components filed in opposition it filed an amended opposition it filed supplemental declarations the summary judgment proceedings were subjected to three hearing certain to increase after applied materials approved the product for use with them i think somewhat why didn't what interfered with that are you saying that because h t started to manufacture the product other potential purchasers would think hey i'm not going to purchase these products either because there must be a reason that the other potential purchaser in sync ceased to purchase we don't know what the reasons are there is no deposition testimony in the record mr wirth timer of h t that came to them and said can you reverse engineer this product is cutting in directly contradicts the testimony of mr seaver that they would continue to discontinue purchasing those products nevertheless