needed to be reversed but stay tuned didn't with that necessitate a premium and because i looked at the special verdict form and it seems that the same products were accused of infringing all three and so i guess my point is if they infringe macintosh such as pick two image file format depending on the setting selected by the operator the user switch seventeen figure six so the specification out sales figures say it is an aspect of the would you be arguing to me that the specification here rises to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer such that a limitation would have to be read in that is otherwise not warranted by the plain i would say does that i think the fact the district forks separately construed the phrase over may be but to question is how do we construe him that's correct but there was a reality you know there were some questions about whether they should be construed differently and they use different language at the end of the date that doesn't matter so much as whether no matter what our case law it says it matters so when does the hypothetical negotiation take place as the the date of the first infringement in our position in the briefs i think was  if you see only the computers at that point in time so why would the hypothetical negotiation even go shushan it would have taken place between p c c since our president binds us to the time of the first infringement which you all hundred four so why wouldn't we look at the person who actually owns the patent and what they would have licensed it for you to do but there's an additional factor it's important here and that additional fact is that a when he testified i think basically mentioned that back and said it doesn't really matter because they would have the benefit of that but i agree with the date and so i guess my concern is that the lower court excluded instructions that were objected to an appeal on the lump sum and maybe i'm wrong actually we should correct me if i am but my understanding was as of the time of infringement one thousand nine hundred four the only licenses c had entered into were in fact lump sum for these patents and in fact all of the offers they were making were lump sum and there's no evidence in the record before us of any royalty you know percentage based type licenses is that right but those are our product development licenses at the time or was a company that was in the product development business and there is a product and this is referred to specifically in the janata office which but there was much more there was a much greater benefit to p c c they were going to be cameramen actually i mean historically what happened was they had this great idea that came up with that they got the best years but isn't that all that exactly the kind of stuff you would argue to the jury and would go to the weight to give to these licenses not whether or not the jury should be instructed all on the possibility of a lot of stuff well that's the are going the other side is clear and the response to that i think is dictated by with this court set and loose and with this court setting work out where it was incredibly important and in fact so in peril think absence of what i'm going to say as evidence in the record would have prevented that kind of instruction the evidence being expected use of the band expected sales bo lumped licensing contracts as well as to lump sum executed licensing contracts and there's no evidence at all that they only did this if and when they could have tain all information available on future sales i mean there's that none of that is is sort of incorporated into any of these licensing agreements such that it would make us think that would be improper to use them in this case if you go back to the research go ahead if you go back to the core principle involved here manufacture ten or a million units well we know there's but there's no limitation in any of these licenses that i can see that limit the number of units in fact on page ten three forty four of p c c will design develop and manufacture prototype  deliverables and i mean i don't see am i wrong or is there somewhere in these licenses that restrict to a certain number of units for example no any band these are beyond these bare naked licenses since they give the right to make use and sell without any limitations on the language in the license agreements that allows the licensees to make use and sell out limitation well the curious if you get down to the issue of whether the court should have issued the instruction there is nothing that worked and there was no testimony in the record you can search for that would compare this license and its terms with the hypothetical license it was just state they had a lump sum license for three million bucks where you are or would you show me up paid a lump sum of three million dollars that's basically the extent mr mallock testable in this case no will no testimony about let's walk through the p c c or up agreement and then the walk through what happens out of nothing but that and what's important in the hypothetical negotiation is they get to make a bazillion cameras for three million dollars off the balcony actually what's going on here as to what they're trying to do when we want us to hit the nail by getting any expected sales and i see that your time's up thank you know in response to her i think what you need to know is that you pretty much understand the brain teaser licenses that were given given to two parties offered to three parties the parties they were offered to which is panasonic samsung are not parties that were taking licenses or being offered licenses so that they could have the inventors of this patent supplied with cameras these were these were licenses being offered to do exactly what fujifilm would have done which is if there was an invention here which didn't think there was making use of it to produce their own pm this is a context in which the hypothetical would be all the evidence points to to the facts would have resulted in a lump sum and we're not here to say that the lump sum should be required but laid out the clear occasion that computer apparatus and information handling systems and apparatus are different types within the meaning of the claims if they are loaded with different application software even if they are otherwise the same should be added to the and we've pointed this out in our previous the arguments were made basically if they've got formats and there are computers in the world therefore the inference that can't be true with any of these apps and simply can't be true the only one over the night n