Yes. But the above arguments are not even the point. I am not going to go circular with Greg over and over on them, we have all made our views known. Today we have a new piece of information, the DE judge’s ruling to dismiss TiVo’s motion to dismiss the new action. This new ruling contains a lot of the DE judge’s opinions, among which is one saying, he did review E*’s evidence, and he did consider the evidence relevant, and based on such evidence, he could not agree with TiVo that the difference was merely colorable. It is this opinion, not anything else said in the ruling, only this opinion, that I’d like to point out, that it may show which direction the wind is blowing. Not saying Judge Folsom will have to follow such opinion, or disregard any new evidence. But Judge Folsom will look at this DE ruling, as one of the many pieces of documents, before making his ruling. If he decides to make a ruling that there is merely colorable difference, he must be sure the justifications are most compelling, because on appeal, E* can use the DE judge’s opinion for support, to point out hey there is now doubt because two judges appear to have different views, among other things. It is true that judge Folsom’s opinion will be based on more thorough evidence and he has more experience on the issue, but that does not matter, because in a summary contempt proceeding, as I have discussed before, the defendants only need to point out that a dispute exists, regardless the credibility of the person who has caused such dispute, because the credibility of the person is not to be judged in a summary proceeding, rather to be debated in a full trial. When both parties review the new information before them, they must try to guess what is the implication of such new info, does it mean Judge Folsom will more likely, or less likely say, the difference is merely colorable.