If there really are things that should be redacted, this should be left to a third party expert. If there are things that might not be obvious to an outsider they could be explained in submissions to the third party redactor which he or she would evaluate and if appropriate apply.
My understanding is that patent examiners generally only look for prior art in other US patents. As a result, if something is generally known and has never been patented, if it is really obvious they tend to miss it.
A California sheriff has no law enforcement powers in Indiana. Did the San Mateo sheriff's deputies she sent to raid the Batmobile factory conduct an illegal raid? Or did they somehow manage to get an Indiana judge to issue a warrant? If the latter, it sounds like there's a problem in Indiana as well as in California - the judge should have refused and told them to file a civil suit in Indiana.
Well, her lawyers certainly tried to remove the photos. Strictly speaking, it is possible that she didn't intend to and that they either misinterpreted her instructions or acted on the basis of general instructions about dealing with papparazzi that weren't intended to apply to this case.
What the contract apparently says is that the employees are entitled to the value of some shares in the company. The shares are valued in US dollars, but the Australian employees were paid in Australian dollars. Twitter converted from US dollars to Australian dollars incorrectly. The contract does not specify the amount of the payment in Australian dollars. Twitter is therefore in compliance with the contract in demanding the return of the excess payment. That isn't to say that demanding the return at this point is equitable - that's another issue. This article is the only one I've found that explains exactly what happened: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/elon-musks-x-demands-repayment-from-former-australian-employees-over-currency-conversion-error/articleshow/111011492.cms
What was the putative purpose of searching the "nest" in which the boxes were located, without, as stated in the warrant application, searching the boxes themselves? I don't see what information useful to a criminal investigation could be obtained from the "nest".
Furthermore, if the purpose did not include searching the boxes, why was it necessary to inventory their contents? They could simply have been left closed and returned unopened to their owners.
The police should be prosecuted for theft. Even if the search had been lawful, the property that they took was not contraband or evidence of a crime. They could not reasonably have believed that the had the legal authority to take it.
Maybe I'm dense, but what evidence exactly did the FBI and the judge who approved the warrant think might be found without opening the individual boxes? I don't see what useful information there would be in entering the vault, removing the boxes and setting them aside, and looking at the empty frame. Unless both the FBI and the judge intended that all the boxes be searched, what was the point?
How the heck do the fees amount to $2 million? As far as I can see, the facts were not in dispute so no discovery was needed, certainly not review of zillions of documents. Nor were there any legal issues requiring extensive research. The case turns on the interpretation of the contract. Even if the lawyers billed $1000/hour, why would this take anything like 2,000 hours?
Unfortunately, copyright maximalism is mainstream in the Democratic Party. Senator Pat Leahy, for instance, one of the most senior and respected Democrats, has been aligned with Hollywood for decades.
Next next next step: The Palestinian Ministry of Culture in its usual pattern of cultural appropriation will claim that it should receive the royalties on the Old Testament.
third party redactions
If there really are things that should be redacted, this should be left to a third party expert. If there are things that might not be obvious to an outsider they could be explained in submissions to the third party redactor which he or she would evaluate and if appropriate apply.
typo
"if it is NOT really obvious".
patent process
My understanding is that patent examiners generally only look for prior art in other US patents. As a result, if something is generally known and has never been patented, if it is really obvious they tend to miss it.
breach of contract?
Why isn't this a breach of contract for which the company can be sued?
X
X is a window system. Musk had no business using the name for Twitter.
Indiana raid
A California sheriff has no law enforcement powers in Indiana. Did the San Mateo sheriff's deputies she sent to raid the Batmobile factory conduct an illegal raid? Or did they somehow manage to get an Indiana judge to issue a warrant? If the latter, it sounds like there's a problem in Indiana as well as in California - the judge should have refused and told them to file a civil suit in Indiana.
intention
Well, her lawyers certainly tried to remove the photos. Strictly speaking, it is possible that she didn't intend to and that they either misinterpreted her instructions or acted on the basis of general instructions about dealing with papparazzi that weren't intended to apply to this case.
contract
What the contract apparently says is that the employees are entitled to the value of some shares in the company. The shares are valued in US dollars, but the Australian employees were paid in Australian dollars. Twitter converted from US dollars to Australian dollars incorrectly. The contract does not specify the amount of the payment in Australian dollars. Twitter is therefore in compliance with the contract in demanding the return of the excess payment. That isn't to say that demanding the return at this point is equitable - that's another issue. This article is the only one I've found that explains exactly what happened: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/elon-musks-x-demands-repayment-from-former-australian-employees-over-currency-conversion-error/articleshow/111011492.cms
contempt
Why is it not contempt of court for government agents to deliberately breach the conditions of a search warrant?
what was the putative purpose of the warrant?
What was the putative purpose of searching the "nest" in which the boxes were located, without, as stated in the warrant application, searching the boxes themselves? I don't see what information useful to a criminal investigation could be obtained from the "nest". Furthermore, if the purpose did not include searching the boxes, why was it necessary to inventory their contents? They could simply have been left closed and returned unopened to their owners.
keys
It is typical for two keys to be required, one kept by the bank, the other by the client.
prosecution
The police should be prosecuted for theft. Even if the search had been lawful, the property that they took was not contraband or evidence of a crime. They could not reasonably have believed that the had the legal authority to take it.
What did they expect to find without inventorying?
Maybe I'm dense, but what evidence exactly did the FBI and the judge who approved the warrant think might be found without opening the individual boxes? I don't see what useful information there would be in entering the vault, removing the boxes and setting them aside, and looking at the empty frame. Unless both the FBI and the judge intended that all the boxes be searched, what was the point?
armed?
How could the victim have been armed when he was hand-cuffed? Did they hand-cuff him after shooting him as he lay dying?
$2 million!?
How the heck do the fees amount to $2 million? As far as I can see, the facts were not in dispute so no discovery was needed, certainly not review of zillions of documents. Nor were there any legal issues requiring extensive research. The case turns on the interpretation of the contract. Even if the lawyers billed $1000/hour, why would this take anything like 2,000 hours?
why bother?
Why have vanity plates at all? How about license plates just give the number and state, and we all use bumper stickers if we want to add something?
singapore
Ms. Chia is originally from Singapore but lives in the US. So no need for her to book it.
copyright maximalism is mainstream
Unfortunately, copyright maximalism is mainstream in the Democratic Party. Senator Pat Leahy, for instance, one of the most senior and respected Democrats, has been aligned with Hollywood for decades.
same restriction
Until recently, Michigan had a similar law requiring auto companies to sell through local dealerships.
next step
Next next next step: The Palestinian Ministry of Culture in its usual pattern of cultural appropriation will claim that it should receive the royalties on the Old Testament.