fifteen cooper notification against twitter incorporated and others mr  district court construed to get a message limitation in such a way that the gateway message had to be forewarned and unchanged the entire transition process that is directed tendre to the time language to distinguish between the two and that's where the misapprehension of the technology came to play the fact the matter is that those guilty are for example both sides experts realize that one of them at the claim that was just a claim for the same type of process one of the one of your it seems to me you have to a broader and an hour or two arguments about playing construction one of the narrower one is that even if the gateway message has to get to the user and presumably therefore actually be the second message that doesn't mean it has to get there without a single change of any bits that's a narrower position you have a broader position which i think maybe you were just talking about which is more troubling to me that you know any number of changes can be made at the gateway to to take the message every season namely the gateway with all due respect clarify it's not a brand new message a many taking the original message to modify to some degree i think that's what the income talks about the processing of the gateway message by the communication gateway mean there can be no change whatsoever partly because there is no other hand seen basis for second second message is that in claim twelve the second message is the gateway message in fact it would be indefinite for lack of an unseen basis if that were not true  allows some changes like address changes that no changes in the community communicative content portion and that was an article in a nutshell we want our expert to testify to in deposition and in expert it's two things i'm claiming one through let me which element involves some question about the single person performance the very first element talks about registering so one has to register for the service that's the third party that we're talking about so the very first element in claim one talks about someone the registry to get the services and then when we were trying to make the argument that that was somehow the direction control they had  just a very hard to make ok and and but but you had said that you would stipulate and proposed a stipulation if i remember right after the august two thousand and eleven akamai decision and then changed course i don't but a month later that is the akamai decision did not intervene between india or did it between your proposing to enter a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and you're saying oh no no we don't want to i would withdraw and i thought it was that you that you would withdraw with prejudice and convince emitting their expert reports i think a week or so later not even addressing claims went through my mind so that this is not like a statement you made that had no consequences no reliance this is one in which their expert reports were shaped by your assertion that these claims were not going to be prosecuted and based on that the current all the time that was our on the fact that they had already withdrawn the plans for ever so that the court did not have subject matters essentially they're trying to proceed under super sad to say that it can be dismissed prejudice because they're already gone a explain one doesn't require any particular relation whatsoever between the gateway message and the second message says send a gateway message to the gateway then create some second message typically you would expect there to be a relation but there's no requirement to claim one through  claim twelve says the transfer the gateway message has to go to the end and yours or i don't have any doubt about that what i do have a doubt about is the district court's apparent view that what that means is that there not be any changes at all in the gateway message as it passes through the gateway to the user and if there can be sun then it seems to me there's a fact question whether the kind of changes you make roughly speaking at least some of the times in the in the header portion with the address but not the communicative content not the message fortune is or is not the same thing as the gateway message getting through to the user that's not the same as them see that that's what i'm not sure that there's anything in it there's a language for the specification that supports the idea that transmitting a message to a bunch of people means that with out a single change of bit the identical package including what's on the outside of the envelope gets to every user that you know inherent in the notion of think it is either entailed by the language you claim twelve or present in the specification is a limitation of the idea that the message goes to the end user a limitation that requires there be no change whatsoever i see that there is an embodied in which there is no change going in and body that doesn't exhaust the the range of the language second message but there's nothing in the mission of the game which is the court is constructed is an access point to the communication network to provide communication services to the terminals it would allow it to provide different contents of that message or have any reason to change the account and the idea that it is too big a way as a way to reach user term cities or the wireless carrier in the past and that somebody meant or if the e mail server add whatever government when you make some interesting arguments about whether there is a misidentification and what a real fate way is certainly maybe i'm missing dense cation of gateway in ordinary part of them so i'm not sure in the  message goes out it's got a bunch of addresses in it good to a bunch of people being good for the email server and it sure is that domain that's the gateway and it's done and everybody seems to see a message and that speak imprecisely here without a single change in a bit that constitutes that message yes it leads have to have i think and i think that's right but i believe in a minimum because it said it's transmitted to ok thank you infringing produce were there for us to find because of the inducing all that time required a single actor and the joint infringement was we just having to prove shorts we weren't the stronger claims