God, this is pathetically incompetent on the court’s part. How the fuck do you mess this up? Imagine the effort Sony put into keeping a lid on these things, for somebody in the court system to fail so miserably at their jobs.
I’m not sure it’s the court’s fault. Sony supplied the document, but no one’s said who did the redactions. Was it Sony? Was it the FTC? I don’t believe the court would have done the redactions. They would want to defer to those who are knowledgeable about what is and isn’t a trade secret.
“The court has scrambled to remove the document, but the damage is done; reporters and Sony’s competition have already downloaded all the documents while they were in the public domain.”
The document was publicly available, typically this is via PACER. Once notified, the court was required to pull the document which they did. None of this indicates who did the poor redactions.
God, this is pathetically incompetent on the court’s part. How the fuck do you mess this up? Imagine the effort Sony put into keeping a lid on these things, for somebody in the court system to fail so miserably at their jobs.Edit: We don’t know it was the courts fault.
I’m not sure it’s the court’s fault. Sony supplied the document, but no one’s said who did the redactions. Was it Sony? Was it the FTC? I don’t believe the court would have done the redactions. They would want to defer to those who are knowledgeable about what is and isn’t a trade secret.
The article stated that the court scrambled to undo the damage, which implied the court was responsible for the redaction.
“The court has scrambled to remove the document, but the damage is done; reporters and Sony’s competition have already downloaded all the documents while they were in the public domain.”
The document was publicly available, typically this is via PACER. Once notified, the court was required to pull the document which they did. None of this indicates who did the poor redactions.
Ahh I see you’re point. Thanks for catching and correcting!