I agree, and this Court has -- just talking about the judgment of the Congress the 105th Congress in 1998. This is the way the argument that somehow implicitly the initial 1790 copyright statute was saying to people, you get a copyright if you exchange whatever existing rights you have. That simply does not make any sense. There is no language, and it's a relatively late-discovered argument, because it sees its full --
The 105th Congress was responsible for the 1790 copyright statute
Can we draw the following hypothesis from the context? 

Context:

I agree, and this Court has -- just talking about the judgment of the Congress the 105th Congress in 1998. This is the way the argument that somehow implicitly the initial 1790 copyright statute was saying to people, you get a copyright if you exchange whatever existing rights you have. That simply does not make any sense. There is no language, and it's a relatively late-discovered argument, because it sees its full --

Hypothesis: The 105th Congress was responsible for the 1790 copyright statuten
Options: 

 - yes

 - it is not possible to tell

 - no
no
Can we draw the following hypothesis from the context? 

Context:

I agree, and this Court has -- just talking about the judgment of the Congress the 105th Congress in 1998. This is the way the argument that somehow implicitly the initial 1790 copyright statute was saying to people, you get a copyright if you exchange whatever existing rights you have. That simply does not make any sense. There is no language, and it's a relatively late-discovered argument, because it sees its full --

Hypothesis: The 105th Congress was responsible for the 1790 copyright statuten
Options: 

 - yes

 - it is not possible to tell

 - no
user
no
assistant