It’s a different argument which gives us the ability to bring in another action. SA has dumbed down their explanation. SFOR gave a complicated response but accurate. If SA dumbed down their argument that does not represent the true facts and we can prove they infringed on our Patent then I am saying to revise the lawsuit as they(SA) are exposed by their public website how important the technical aspect of 2MFA is and they do not say it’s as simple as Kindergarten and Greek and Roman communication. They SA has publically posted on a public forum it’s complexity. The judges should be presented that even SA says their product is complexi and that buying their product from SA would not be similar at all to their argument. It puts SA ‘s council in a position to talk about the complexity and SFOR’s complexity. My thoughts are that the judges will be offended in the simplistic view that was not accurate by SA”s council and we can give them our own simplistic examples for simple laymens to understand. SA deviates from their own logic and we should use it as a catalyst to tell the judges they were shamed by SA’s simplistic argument that is not the TRUTH. We gave them our simplistic answer that explains our patent and then show the court the complexity and how we were infringed upon. Bear