With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". used a monthly licensing fee as the basis for his valuations.” Finally, the figure the court adopted was near the center of the range supported by the evidence. Id. at 534-35 (footnotes omitted). The evidence presented by Oracle provides a much more speculative basis for calculating hypothetical-license damages than the evidence in Polar Bear, Wall Data, and Jarvis. Although a copyright plaintiff need not demonstrate that it would have reached a licensing agreement with the infringer or present evidence of “benchmark” agreements in order to recover hypothetical-license damages, it may be difficult for a plaintiff to establish the amount of such damages without undue speculation in the absence of such evidence. Cf. Getaped.Com, Inc. v. Cangemi, 188 F.Supp.2d 398, 405-06 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, because Oracle has no history of

A: holding that competitor could seek only injunction under fdutpa not damages
B: recognizing the difficulty of determining a nonspeculative hypotheticallicense damages amount when the infringer is a direct competitor
C: recognizing the difficulty of calculating damages but not finding the task impossible
D: holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer even in the absence of direct evidence for direct infringer
B.