Every so often a lawyer will use the term "facts of the case" as if he or she has an objective view of a situation. But is the "objectivity" based on a subjective selection of the facts?
I think of this because of different interpretation of online security and of how things should be named.
My current irritation is with my bank requiring me to reset my PIN every so often. It is the only financial institution that I deal with that requires this. I know it's bad practice to keep passwords for a long time, but I'll change them on my own schedule, thank you.
I used to change my bank password when required, and then change it back again. Now it won't let me use any of the last four passwords. Worse yet, if I make any mistake in the entry, the site makes me change other information. Most sites leave all the correct information in the form and only want the missing information entered or the correct information entered. I gave up trying to figure out what the "correct" information I should enter.
A long standing irritation is with a mutual fund company that wants me to agree to the terms and conditions every time I sign on. This is the only company that I know that requires this.
My only explanation is that the companies' lawyers required these steps even though few other companies see these steps as important.
An example of a lawyer not going far enough. I applied and received a trademark for "Helper" with respect to software. The application was for "cassette tape and magnetic media". Then came electronic distribution and CDs. Of course, any challenges my lawyer made were stonewalled by other lawyers, regardless of how the other "Helper" software was distributed.
The most ridiculous case was the advice that a computer club received. It had had a DOM, disk-of-the-month, for many years. When it hired an attorney to register its name and to ensure its tax-exempt status, he suggested that it change DOM to eDOM, educational disk-of-the-month. Of course, how educational are a bunch of games and utilities?
