general premises that had the skill of warrior and very low while this skills of the employees were very or the workers were very high and it tends to show that the workers would be employees however of computer programming in general in the silicon valley computer programming is frequently found that employees do work from home for various reasons including telecommuting and therefore we certainly do  volunteers because i want to clarify what i believe is a misapprehension as to the state of the case with respect to those causes of action originally in the state court case there was a copyright infringement claim as well as for state law causes of action a cause of action for breach of contract which was where the allegation was the defendants didn't pay royalties on the software cause of action for fraud where the allegation was made that the competition which was based on the allegation that the tenants had distributed the software that's at issue in this lawsuit all three of those causes of action were dismissed with prejudice as part of the summary judgment motion and to be you in the words that she was alleging in a lawsuit she could not maintain the state law causes of action as well there was one additional state law cause of action which even even my fraud claim even the one that said your client agreement where she grant a perpetual license to stock or tissue in this lawsuit in exchange for i believe it was thirty five thousand dollars so your theory is she got thirty five thousand dollars for nothing because she had nothing to sell that's correct and that was what the district court found and that issue i don't believe has been challenged on appeal there is no discussion in the papers of the state law cause of action at least as they to the extent they are dependent on the ownership of the software what about the question that precludes your client from attacking i know what they what has been done in the off field frankly haven't had occasional look at the copyright area i'm not aware of any case law that provides any type of license in the copyright case in the ninth circuit that holds that there is an licensees stoppel in the copyright context and let me add one of the points in that regard there are three defendants in this lawsuit the company accurate research and she went to jules even in the best case scenario for the appellant only one of those respondents was a party to the contract so even any worst case scenario the individual defendants and natalie's would still have the right even under any point during the case that she had any significant involvement in anything relating to the case she is an employee she's the husband or the wife of america but there's no suggestion that she ever had any such an involvement with what the plaintiff did not own the copyright she could not make a trade secret claim based on the defendant's use of the source code which underlie the copyrighted works judge fogel concluded that it was an open question have always been prepared to mediate the case if it makes sense but to be able to mediate a case you need no real disrespect which need rational parties and when you have a a limitations of three years statute is now expired it has continued to run since the case was dismissed in the district court and i believe the case law is quite clear that that claim is now time or so if this case at the district court's decision is a firm as i believe it should be i do not believe there's anything left to be litigated in this case now with respect to the specific work for hire issues that are presented i'm not going to go through the  factors in the evidence in the same level of detail as my counterpart did because i think the evidence and the argument on those issues is what was quite well set forth in the briefs except to say that from the very beginning the reason that we brought the motion for summary judgment on the work for hire issue is because we believe there was no evidence in the records that would support the work for her claim given the given the applicable legal standards of the  specifically we believe that there was little if any evidence on any of the twelve or thirteen factors depending on how you count them that would favor a finding that these the eighteen people who wrote th the work on the works at issue were actually employees at the district court there was no evidence a listed at all in fact on an opposing summary judgment the plaintiff ignored the work for hire argument altogether at oral argument  the plaintiff relied upon the copyright registration certificate as the evidence and support of the work for hire claim even on appeal the evidence that is actually of  record is very limited on the work for hire issue it is not accurate to say that the only factor that favors a finding that the actual authors of the software were independent contractors rather than employees as evidence on the employee benefits prong or on the tax treatment prong all those prongs certainly overwhelmingly favor a finding that they are independent contractors the other factors also favor that that finding  their the evidence is clear that employees or that the contractors who did the work in many instances worked away from from joe's office as worked in their own facilities use their own equipment they had a high level of expertise in their field characterizations of joe's contributions or assertions about what the record says certainly aren't backed up by what actually appears in the record for example the assertion that most of the most of the employees work out of the out of the home out of out of her home or out of her office using her facilities the citation for the record for that proposition merely says that she contributed facilities and equipment it says nothing wh most of the employees relied upon her equipment or facilities in order to perform the work the district court concluded in ruling on the work for hire issue that there was no  evidence before that court to support a finding of work for hire i believe the district court was correct i believe the record on this appeal confirms the court was correct and unless the court has any questions on that issue i don't have anything further w motion it doesn't appear anywhere in any of the papers or any of the record and therefore i think it would be both inappropriate for it to be considered on appeal and inappropriate to be considered such not only because it's simply nothing in the record that would support such a