A.fm.

wow, sorry typing on mobile and apparently my fingers are too fat to avoid the return button. The legal system does seem to optimize toward truth finding, though, unless you define “optimize toward” as “guarantee all the time.” All the steps involved, from discovery/production to appeals, etc are aimed at providing both sides the opportunity to present relevant info in the attempt to prove or disprove something.

Provess not

@Barmar Gotta disagree about the legal

eones possession with the intent to not return it. The other scenario lacks the element of removal of possession. The employer has not taken money from the employee; rather, he has declined to provide something promised.

@isilanes It’s not very complicated. The first scenario you describe is a person removing something from so

@vsz Also, keep in mind mom-and-pop shop's notwithstanding, companies and their HR departments have procedures in place for this sort of thing. While "Joe called me X on 8/1/20 at 3 p.m. in the mailroom" written on a random sheet of paper and kept at your home or in your desk or in your pocket likely wouldn't carry much weight, a form filled out by a manager and submitted to H/R as well as the follow-up actions taken likely will be significant in a case. Such action would usually be a meeting or a formal write-up of some sort; this type of thing won't happen w/o something along those lines

@DavidSchwartz I follow your logic, but your subjective opinion on whether an act is "violent" or not means nothing in the context of a legal question.

You must not know the definition of the word obfuscate, because my comments did no such thing. If they appear confrontational, that may be because in real debates (anywhere, be it a courtroom or a middle school competition) people have to back up their claims and do not get to do what you think suffices here: simply restating your contention again and again while offering nothing to support it other than assumptions of your own creation.

Or, alternatively, explain why the sources I provided are wrong and you know better than they (e.g., authors of the articles, practitioners) are less knowledgeable than you.

LOL @ accuracy supersedes timing. I would suggest you substantiate that claim, but you've already demonstrated yourself unable to do so.

Wrong. OP asked the question knowing there is a time limit. Don't get salty with me because you don't understand.

Please don't respond with some silliness about how HR Directors names are easily corroborated in other ways as I have made clear that's not at issue here.

Ex.: You say "But I only changed Mr. Jones' name to Mr. Johnson on page 5 and Ms. Matthews' name to Ms. Mattison on page 7." The party opposing you may then suggest you made other changes to the document. . .. Ex.: if the investigation occurred in 2017, but the metadata in it says "Last modified on June 1, 2020," that's also an opening for the other side to question its integrity.

I realize you're mistakenly stating that "accuracy supersedes the timing" and as I've noted several times, you're making that up out of nowhere. You won't put forth a source because you can't - it doesn't exist. And your last point about the fact-finder is laughable. It's not about corroborating the name of some HR manager or something. It's about modifying the document and the fact that doing so can cast doubt on the integrity of the rest of the document.

...timing matters because the notes are called contemporaneous notes for a reason. After a certain point, they are no longer contemporaneous.

LOL @ heckling. When I see factually inaccurate statements and I either know or can discover through some research a more factually accurate answer, I try to do so. Correcting would be a more appropriate word than "heckling." Why would you ask if it's important to me that you speculate on that? That's nonsensical. I asked you that because, by virtue of OP's question even existing on Law.SE, one can deduce that certain time limits apply. In fact, simple word construction should clue one in that..

@IñakiViggers Here's a question... You are contending that timing of edits does not matter. But why do you think OP asked the question in the first place? OP knows the timing matters. She doesn't know how long she has to make those edits, but she knows it matters because, if she didn't, she wouldn't have had this question to pose

...know it based on the 3 or 4 articles on the topic of contemporaneous notes I cited to on the Stack and in my comments above.

@IñakiViggers Please state what I took out of context. On the other hand, you're simply making up arbitrary principles about the timeliness of the edits. It's not that I think that delayed edits can lead to other parts of the document being called into question (a notably different statement than your characterization of "dismantle the credibility of everything in [the] document"), it's that I know it can based on experience but, because "experience" isn't a citable source of info, I also...

@IñakiViggers Lol! Your presumption that that is my presumption indicates you are severely disconnected from this debate. And no, it wouldn't be unreasonable, as I've demonstrated for you at least three times already.

Yes, you did. "An inspector's delay of edits does not diminish whatsoever the evidentiary weight of the edited notes..." (your opinion, perhaps, but not supported in reality). "The value (if any) of documenting such edits is negligible at best." (again, your opinion, but not borne out by experience). "Accordingly, a litigant's fixation on unedited notes would be vexatious." (False - unsubstantiated).

Depending on the application used, your contention that it's totally fine if edits are delayed, doesn't hold up one bit. It doesn't matter that you can go find who the HR Director is. What matters is that if there is evidence the document has been modified, which may allow the other side to cast doubt on the integrity of other parts of the document.

"A decision-maker that needs to make a finding of fact will prefer the credibility of a person whose evidence is supported by contemporaneous record, where everything else is equal." pragma.law/2017/07/10/power-contemporaneous-note

"Physical notes should betaken in pen, and whiteout or similar should not be used. This protects their integrity. If errors are made during note-taking, the erroneous note(s) should be marked as deleted but not removed, i.e. a single strike-through, and amendments noted and initialled or errata appended (Professional Note Taking, 2007)." sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/forensics/…

@IñakiViggers One is left to wonder why you think you can just make up unsubstantiated statements, pass them off as factual and, when faced with unambiguous evidence to the contrary, believe if you just keep stating your fabrications again and again, they will somehow become factual. If you're confident in your answer, back it up with something - anything - that supports you. Of course, that's impossible.

My contention is that while there is no edict stating, for example, "Notes must be completed within 3 hours," the generally agreed principle is that they should be taken at the time, or as close to it as practicable, subsequent edits should be documented/retained to protect potential evidence, and the longer after the event they are recorded, the less weight they may potentially carry in court. You inexplicably take issue with the timing aspect, despite substantiation I provided or that is easily found on your own.

Actually, I'm okay with the record remaining as is - demonstrating that your unsourced and unsupported answer is divorced from reality both from the standpoint of the textbook and the practical application.

Typical of you to misstate as irrelevant something that is totally on point. You mentioned people spending time parsing originals and edited versions. The point about Word and Acrobat is that that is not actually difficult to achieve and, thus, the point made through your sarcasm is moot. Now, it's beyond me why you think your opinion on things you're unfamiliar with carry more weight than the views of people who do those things for a living, but it's notable your answer contains no sources and you've not even attempted to refute that contemporaneous notes will be found more credible.

Disputing unedited version should be retained? That's demonstrating a lack of depth here. Unclear who "everyone involved" is supposed to be & one wonders what level of expertise you have with basic applications like Word and Acrobat. Nobody need spend time "parsing" anything unless, for example, litigation comes out of the investigation. Then, a simple PDF of a redlined doc should suffice & is not difficult to examine. A decision-maker making a finding of fact will prefer the credibility of a person whose evidence is supported by contemporaneous record, where everything else is equal.

Perhaps. For this reason, I mentioned that the original version should be retained if indeed the inspector determines a change is needed. The goal should always be simultaneous notetaking, though.

Edits made later can quickly undermine the credibility of the notes.

@phoog If the hypothetical hoax you describe meets the criteria of the definition in the regulation of "Broadcast of hoaxes," then it is unlikely to be protected by the Constitution. Saying fake things which cause harm is not protected speech.

I suppose I should've flagged the comments

Finally, not that I need to provide this, considering you've not supported your claim with anything more than your opinion, but it simply can't be more clear: "The Federal Communications Commission and local franchising authorities are responsible for enforcing a variety of cable television regulations." fcc.gov/media/….

You act in bad faith and whine about me being "rude." Rich. You keep mentioning regulation of content. Not me. The FCC does indeed regulate aspects of cable television outside of rates, according to the FCC. Kindly direct your disagreement w/that to one of their consumer-facing divisions for questions or complaints. I read the page you linked. It supports me. As do several links contained here: fcc.gov/media/media-bureau-resource-materials.

Lol, I'm not deleting a correct statement. You're wrong and you're being inconsistent. First, you said the FCC's authority re: cable is limited to rates. However, it's not, as demonstrated by, among other places at the links I already provided, the quote you included above, which states the FCC develops, recommends, and administers the policy and licensing programs. The policies and the licensing ≠ rates. Thus, it's not limited to rates. You said it can't regulate content. Nobody claimed that. Yet it indeed regulates numerous aspects of cable. From the Media link, click "Resource Materials."

Okay, so per my above comment, you're trolling. If you don't need links to support your claims, then neither do I. Nevertheless I indeed do have them. The FCC's authority isn't simply limited by law because you say so. So, if what you're saying is true, support it. Otherwise, to borrow a quote, "link or it didn't happen." As it turns out, the FCC regulates a significant amount more than just "rates." Finally, it's worth noting: why did you even comment? Neither the question nor my answer discuss cable, save for my 2nd paragraph which is paraphrased directly from the agency's website.

Frankly, I think a better question is do you have a link that supports your contention that the FCC's authority is restricted to broadcast? I already provided a link to the page which states the FCC "regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states." Here's a consumer guide discussing numerous non-rate cable issues the FCC handles: fcc.gov/consumers/guides/subscriber-signal-quality-standards‌​. And here's a link to the Media Bureau which "develops, recommends, and administers the policy and licensing programs...

... relating to the media industry, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio." (fcc.gov/media)

Are you trolling? I linked to every substantive statement I made in the answer. Hence my suggestion to read before commenting. EDIT: even without links, I quoted directly from federal regulations....

You could try actually doing a little reading before commenting. You're dead wrong.

Does that distinction mean anything in particular? I've tried the NVRAM, etc., reset. Next move is make a post on the Stack. Normally, I'd just take it to the Genius bar at the Apple store, but not sure when that'll be an option again! Finally, thanks for your reply :)

@Monomeeth Hey, no worries, and I hope your recovery is going well. There is one difference between my situation and the post I linked to in the earlier message. Whereas that person's MBP was going into Sleep mode or something similar, mine does nothing. Whether I select Shut Down or Restart, it just doesn't do anything. Same thing when updating an app or even trying to update to the latest version of MacOS... when it comes time to restart to finish the update, nothing.

@Monomeeth Hi. Great answer here: apple.stackexchange.com/a/352353/240819. I am experiencing a similar issue on my 16inch MBP. Would you suggest these same steps for this model / Catalina? And if so, is the process for doing those resets the same on the 16inch MVP and/or Catalina? (Definitely open to feedback from anyone else who may have some insight, btw)\

More realistically, a common type of trade secret is a company's customer / client lists.

To jump back to the journalism scenario, it wouldn't be a journalist's idea for a story (expressed in a meeting or not) that would potentially be a trade secret; rather, if the newspaper developed a quicker and more accurate way of fact-checking all of its stories, which allows it to save money, go to print earlier, and be more accurate than its competitors... that would be a trade secret.

Further, in analyzing whether something is a trade secret, Courts most often consider whether the information in question is "used in business[ ]and give[s] an opportunity to obtain an economic advantage over competitors who do not know or use it."

In this policy note (uspto.gov/ip-policy/trade-secret-policy) from the US Patent and Trademark Office, trade secrets are further described as "consist[ing] of information and can include a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process."

Just perusing chat and came across this back-and-forth. Gotta say, Inaki's right on this. It's not true that "ideas an employee states in, say, a brainstorming session, belong to the employer." In fact, an idea in and of itself will almost never be a trade secret. As Inaki quoted, a trade secret is a "plan or process."