single license for a computer program for a single set price, regardless of the right to make copies of the program, is the purchase of a single piece of tangible personal property.” On that basis, the State contends that the total purchase price is subject to tax, regardless of the number of copies subsequently created. However, the State was conspicuously silent regarding this “longstanding and consistent policy” until the eleventh hour of this litigation. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c) provides that “[ijssues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (emphasis added); see also City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 679 (Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>). This rule was implemented in response to
holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment holding that in summaryjudgment context nonmovant must expressly present to the trial court those issues that would defeat the movants right to a summary judgment and failing to do so may not later assign them as error on appeal holding that the parly opposing summary judgment must do more than merely suggest possible error in the movants summary judgment evidence he must submit facts which demonstrate that the movants summary judgment evidence is questionable or that the movants allegations are not properly supported holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal