Why lock the original thread? Don't want any discussion!!

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 Posts: 5

To bad you caved in to Target it seems all that caving in was for nothing as the disputed 'directives' are easy to find by typing "Target AP Directives for 2006" or any similar keywords, into any search engine, Ever consider standing up to thugs like Target!
Razz

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:47 am Post subject:

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 Posts: 5

Hardly. Had you bothered to check you would have found that only 2 of the 10 links you've provided actually contain the APD.
===============

Well I found 4 of that group not 2, the bottom one you have to register in order to participate in that 'group', the others cited may well have taken it down or it may just have sunk towards the bottom of the forum posts and can't be easily found. The info came from only a search of 1 search site, other sites (google, yahoo, etc) may well bring up other places where the info is posted:

Not on the above referenced list but at this site there is a 'link' to the info:

This particular point being made was to say the info you deleted is commonly available on the net.

I'm not going to beat it to death, just say that I am not in favor of anyone bowing to thugs like T. and removing info from the internet. We will just have to disagree on this.

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject:

Four hardly qualifies as "common". Even it did, that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the information contained in the APD is proprietary, and/or copyrighted, and/or a trade secret as target has alleged.

If the APD is one, some, or all of the above, it clearly should NOT be on the web without just cause.

As there is no just cause in this instance, there is absolutely no reason for site operators like myself to risk a lawsuit.

The simple fact is that the individual responsible for posting the APD all over is doing so only out of spite and has admitted as much. Should target choose to pursue this individual through the courts, he or she will soon learn that spite isn't a valid defense.

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 1421 Location: Ontario, Canada

SleK, you did the right thing. Thank you, again.

Little Miss, the original post was on your board for nearly a month, and never replied to. Is that discussion? Was there something in that directive that had reasonable discussion value? Clearly, it was just a posting of information, which Target claims was proprietory, that really had no relevance to anyone other than a loss prevention member of Target. There was nothing earth shattering within it. Had there been a major change in policy or procedure, which had been brought up and referenced to past practice, it might, MIGHT have been discussion material. There wasn't, there isn't....

As administrator, SleK was provided with a legal request to remove said post, and did so, for the protection of this forum board, and ALL participants. One disgruntled Target employee should not allow the entire board to be faulted.

If this was such a big deal to you, and Target Sucks, why has it taken so long to respond? Why were you not involved in discussion on this topic prior to the removal? Of course, responding would be beating a dead horse, as it doesn't much matter now, the post is locked, the administrator has complied in order to protect the rest of the participants to this board.

Thanks again, SleK, you did the right thing.

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 4

"As administrator, SleK was provided with a legal request to remove said post"

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There are too many issues here to reply at legnth to any/all of them, but here goes a brief try:

1) The letter posted was simply 'puff', anyone can pay $150 and get a lawyers' letter sent to someone about trees overhanging a property line, a barking dog or an item posted on the web. I do it all the time, dosen't mean zip, sometimes people comply with the request, sometimes they ignore it.

2) I see that the item has been posted either 2, 4 or 10 times in various places on the internet. Once something like this is in common circulation it is no longer proprietary information. The claim for any confidentiality on the Directives is now moot.

3) To any attorney doing criminal defense work (ie: shoplifting) involving Target the posted item (which is now safely in my files!) is absolute GOLD. I can almost guarantee that I will NEVER lose any shoplifting case where my client has been charged at a Target store.

My first question to any AP agent would be: "Are you aware of the Target Directives? Any reply of "No." should be the kiss of death for their prosecution, a "Yes." would be followed up by dozens of questions about the store procedures involved and how/if the AP agent was in compliance with ALL of them.

I could not care less as to the reason for the initial post but to say the information is NOT of interest to anyone but Target people is simply foolish.

Somewhere in this long document are references to various procedures and courses that the AP agents must complete. Any lead up to a defense for a Target arrest for shoplifting will require Target to provide copies of the other named manuals, course outlines and business documents showing when the agent completed those courses etc.

The information is extremely relevant and important in my line of work. I am very pleased to have it in my files now and will make it available to any of my colleagues who want it.

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 1421 Location: Ontario, Canada

Thank you. you just proved Target's CASE for why it should not have been posted. it's only releveance was to the detriment of the Target Loss Prevention program.

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 4

But the real 'Thank you' is to the person or persons who got it posted.

Now can we please hear from employees or ex-employees of Wal Mart, Sears and JC Penney!

Although I did see on one of the sites the requirements needed for Wal Mart AP to stop someone, so at least part of that cat is out of the bag.

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:42 am Post subject:

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 4

What an astounding reply!

You mix apples, and oranges here, there are so many errors in logic in the boiler plate you posted that it isn't worth a detailed reply.

If you ever do end up in court (& you won't for posting this sort of info) for any reason, be sure and hire an attorney and DO NOT rely on your own interpertation of what is and is not LAW.

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject:

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 4

Mr. Sigurdur, the cited PROPOSED legislation (UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT) is from a committee in 1985, it is a SUGGESTION for 'patent' protection legislation that the various states might wish to implement. It is not as you claim, a 'law' as cited. Did you check the 50 states to see if any of them adopted this proposed legislation? Obviously the answer is NO, you didn't even pick up on the fact that it was draft legislation put together by a committee.

Here is a minor quote from the Preface to the cited item:

"A valid patent provides a legal monopoly for seventeen years in exchange for public disclosure of an invention. If, however, the courts ultimately decide that the Patent Office improperly issued a patent, an invention. . ."

You throw around legal termonology with no regard to what it actually means, you cite laws that I should read, when in fact they are simply a committee draft of suggested legislation. You blunder around like a moose at a tea party! (I thoughtfully translated that into Canadian, here we say 'bull in a China shop')

Do I have to belabor the obvious? Rubick can 'patent' his 'cube', Microsoft can 'patent' Works Suite 2005, Pfizer can 'patent' the formula for Lipitor but Target did not 'invent' their AP Directives and can not 'patent' the document. Clear on that point at least??

I suppose your fallback position will be 'but it's copyrighted!' But that is another losing argument which I don't have time to go into.

I would opine that you should stick to misinterperting your Canadian law as you did when you and Sharyn were sued by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Didn't do real well in that case did you? In fact you LOST it!

So might I suggest that you stick to your web page designing, Sharyn to her ringing up customers and that you cease misinforming folks about what the Law is and also stop trying to tell an American attorney about U.S. laws.

I will of course give you the last word, but please excuse me if I no longer respond, it isn't worth the effort and I have a full week of actual court appearances to prepare for -

and BTW the Twain quote was quite accurate, but as it applies to YOU

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain Rock on!

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject:

:yawn:

Well, I have to thank you for demonstrating your tenuous grasp of logic.

On that note, any further postings by you, any of your aliases, or anyone else regarding the whereabouts of the APD, not containing any actual discussion of the APD, will be deleted on sight.

Thanks for playing. Smile

	Forum Index -> Feedback & Support	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1