this court's to november if you were asking that the jury verdict be reinstated now the district court did agree with the jury in one respect it agreed that there was a partnership from one nine hundred ninety seven to nineteen march or april so when they had a medical device or devices that will were selling that was that what they wanted to do was increase the value of this business and remember you're out what they want to do more specifically maybe i'm wrong but i think the plan was that they would get someone to produce these devices they would then be able to sell it pretty soon for a substantial profit originally that's correct they did what they wanted to do was to have an outside manufacturer out on page two forty five of the record it's my understanding mr divina testify that the purpose of the original partnership between himself and mr sites all was to develop the instrument obtain intellectual property on it and sell the intellectual property as soon as possible not to obtain an outside manufacture of mass produce the product and then sell the whole business they were doing which is not uncommon coming up with a good idea getting intellectual property on it and then selling intellectual property am i wrong about the record judge on page three forty and three thirty three what they what was represented by doctors i tell you was that this was a partnership an umbrella partnership that originally started out where they were going to correct they were going to they were going to develop these a lot of scopes but then and have it manufactured by an outside manufacturer i'm on page three forty three forty one well what can you tell me direct name showing it was still law exactly i'm sorry let me make sure i sent to understand this testament you put your two and three forty because it's different from what i was saying what i was saying as the testimony on two forty five indicates is that the regional partnership which we began in one nine hundred ninety seven was for the purpose of developing the instrument and selling the intellectual property as soon as possible i was simply distinguishing that from what later turned out to be the determination by the gentlemen then in the formation of and a craft which was then to develop a product themselves and sell it it seemed to me that the testimony indicated at the outset in ninety seven  call had always been to develop this business not just to develop a particular product and just to sell the intellectual product property but the goal at the very there's testimony which the district court felt compelled to credit under her standard of review that doctors i tell bait the statement to dr developer well that's correct but just right now  there never was a partnership from the beginning that the statement that to mr a few scopes never occurred but the jury is intitled after a nine day trial going through a ton of evidence to reach the o by standing here as the appellant and telling me about the things that are good for your case but ignoring the things that are bad for your case in nine hundred ninety nine your client signed the contract agreeing that was simply an independent contractor and not a partner so what does it matter if on page three forty he says well yes i signed the contract and yes the contract says exactly that in no uncertain terms and yes i sent an email recognizing that that's what concerns me about the contract but dr even though i cited doctors i tell told me it didn't really mean anything but what the heck i mean what why why does that mean there's still a partnership when your client signed a document saying he understands there is not a partnership and he's only an independent contractor ok so let there's two two things i want to address first is what the standard that the district judge is supposed to apply the standard is that the evidence has to be so strongly and overwhelmingly inconsistent with the verdict no reasonable jury could have returned because the jury ruled and mr developers favor so that's the standard that the district judge was supposed to apply and i'm going over review this  partner of your there's a difference but what it says that they're not a partner he's not a partner in indo kraft it does not say that he isn't the december l a partnership doesn't exist in fact the jury was entitle to conclude based on the evidence that the some part sorry it's just i don't understand what you're talking about it's my understanding that the assets that he now wants forty percent of were related to the sale and elimination of end there's a theory all partnership we're partners if you're if you think you're one with isn't there a real partnership pertains to there is a company that company is end of craft there is a document that you signed saying i'm not a partner of so how is it that you think you can claim forty percent of the profits from endo craft as a partner let me start with the sales agreement your own book came out your client might have gotten shocker and maybe this other guy is not a good guy i can't make those kinds of determinations and maybe the jury did write he signed a document a legal document saying he understood he was not a partner but dr ok but let's go to what the evidence actually said that was before the jury and that i l as to as to it all and in fact in fact the evidence was in the record your honour's that it wasn't complied with he didn't get paid under the i'm sorry you know sometimes sometimes doctors i sell paid him more than he had to but the more that he had to like the fifty thousand dollars payment of the seventy five thousand rpm it absolutely were not do not key to forty percent of the profitability of the business because the years in which he received those extra payments the business was in fact unprofitable so rather than that being an indication of his partner status to me it's an indication of the employer you status you know my husband's a partner at the firm doesn't make money we don't get paid right the firm doesn't say oh yes we're going to pay you anyway it but they do that with their employees the employees conclusion based upon your comics common sense your experience whatever it might be but your honor your with all due respect you're not on the jury ok so the standard is completely different here the jury after trial after hearing a lot of evidence and considering counter claims and co inventor ship issues partnership issues but nobody has anything to do with was he a partner or not there's a legal document that he said and saying he was not he sent an e mail expressing his own concern about the fact hey wait a minute this document says i'm not a partner and then he signed it to anyway i don't as a matter of law i don't see how his later testimony but what title told me he  partnership that preexisted into craft by two years continues unabated and that into a craft is merely the vehicle for which we will carry out our roller partnership goals that i between the parties and that nothing else it says between and don't craft and my client not between doctors i tells my client and that's the key distinction i don't understand what you that end of craft is the only thing for which damages can be sought that's there are no damages that your client is seeking outside of the sale i disagree i disagree with right of the jury her complicated damages testimony and concluded that the value of the partnership was the enterprise value was worth something and secondly that the lost profits during the lifetime of this partnership also he was entitled to forty percent and he used and don't grab the information but if you can coming up with the damages calculations he valued the partnership a component of which was certainly ended up with a component it's it's an a little bit of weight but the full weight so what i couldn't give them what i can't understand is how you can go for weight to those three factors and still conclude that the creation of  well that's that's right that's right i just want to go back to your previous point which is it seemed to us you are that the judge district judge took that favorable quote favorable to the jury verdict put it aside and said let's look at i just understand the feeling here so having your theory you've got two different entities an umbrella partnership correct and then endocrine correct and is it your view that the umbrella partnership owns the entirety was that and the craft was the vehicle to achieve the partnership objectives which didn't change from one nine hundred ninety seven to two thousand and eleven and away with for ninety seven to ninety nine there was no other entity that the partnership continues so even though there's a school switching gears the only thing that happened there was it went from an outside manufacturer to dentist of owner spending most of his time overseeing the manufacture thing that happened they went into business they created different business he signed the agreement the judge moore we've highlighted repeatedly of it inside the agreement they operated in a way that does not suggest that there was any partnership whatsoever we've got ninety nine to two thousand i did how many years eleven ok and what i mean the testimony we've talked about was all around the period of the change but after ninety nine we've got the agreement which was not enforced and ducted to phone a doctor tells told dennis to phone or he would not i can force that in fact he never did he did even though i think you've got an entity that was operating and it was operating with mr sipe tell being with down all the common for a partnership to create an underlying entity to protect themselves from product liability or other types of liability but why would it be just your doctor i felt that not mr bone also as part of that because doctors i tell did  first he was the one that created and craft he did it without consulting originally with dentist on but there's a lot of evidence that in fact the partnership continued dennis the phone was doing all the he never said any non speculative manner there took place after the formation of the aircraft and the plaintiffs argue that you're allowed to draw an inference that maybe it was after but if we were here honestly for example statute of limitations case in the plane of sat i was hurt some national sheep she cried is that there was a partnership during a period where the only plan was to work together for about a year come up with a device and sell off the intellectual property for somebody else to have a goal was to have a million dollars to have a business and sell it but his realized that our original plan which was just to work together for about a year to create this device and sell it off wasn't going to work so we switch gears and how do they switch gears a week later doctors i tell goes out and without even talking about it with m partnership these are statements made by somebody who realizes that their original plan has ended and now there's a different phase in the relationship you should use what's bothering me about the case and i don't quite know what to do about it maybe there's nothing i can do about this your friend made a lot of comments about to the jury it seems to me that one of the things that might have happened to the jury here was because the only position you were taking was there was never any partnership and once they reached it and there was plenty which the even the judge concluded that there was a partnership in the first two years they just kind of ended it you had presented to the jury but even if you conclude that there was a partnership in the first two years you also have to conclude based on the evidence that things changed in ninety nine that was never present the truth of that fieri would have been presented by you and that was never presented so once the jury gets set and if their hundred percent sure that the there was a partnership in ninety seven what would they do now that the and that and if that's correct that i don't know what we do with that with under a new theory that we introduce a new theory at this day and evaluate the that the jury found there was a partnership in ninety seven and that the judge also found there was i'm reading the judge's opinion on a six and a seven and she says a jury could thus have found there was a partnership from ninety seven and ninety nine i don't see any statement in her opinion in which she agrees that there was she just says giving deference i jury could have found a partnership existed during this period but they could not have found what existed there after and i may be wrong on the fact ultimately it doesn't matter though because what's what i mean what they're what i like so you think it doesn't matter but there is a difference between a jury finding something in say and the judge saying well under the standard of review i can't reverse it that's different from a juror from a judge saying and i agree with it appellant that even if there were a partnership in the ninety seven ninety eight period or for that limited purpose of trying to do something for twelve months and get paid quick when the parties realize that wouldn't work and they realize that if they want to make a go of this they would have to work together for a long period of time this thing off and that was devoted to testimony that we had to switch gears and we had to switch gears that didn't work and when they switched gears they switched gears with doctors i tells creating a company hiring mr develop as effectively as employer independent the factors that the first circulate out of south x and when you walk through those factors did they conduct business in the name of the of the partnership it was they were attached or their capital counts were there people in partnership books the servants based on this record they certainly could have reached this conclusion of this umbrella partnership for this entire period of time the end of the day the jury did not believe dr site tell when he specifically said no partnership the partnership no discussion about steven  i would just ask you once again to look back at the standard of review here the standard view is very very important it's not whether especially your honour's would as jurors reach a conclusion whether a reasonable jury could reach no reasonable jury reached do you agree that under rhode island law whether a partnership exists is a question of law there are fundamental facts that have to be there are underlying facts of court but do you agree that the ultimate question of whether partnership exists the question of law i don't actually believe that it is a fa that's my understand no your honor said that i sad cases here that say it's a matter of law i think in certain instances when you're looking at let's say a contract does a contract create a partnership i do think that yes i agree with your honor that  as a matter of law but ultimately no no i'm not asking whether a court can decide to quit can always decide something is a matter of life there are no fact that's to the contrary i'm asking you underwrote i would the law is the determination of whether a partnership exists between two parties a question of law fact i do believe it's a big question because there has to be a hundred one fact finding based on the totality of the circumstances and then you're applying the law the partnership standards that we've had were instructed by the church by the judge in this case