Slashdot Mirror

www.sorehands.com writes "This morning, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Intel v. Hamidi. This is a case where Ken Hamidi, an ex-employee of Intel build a website that complained of Intel's employment practices and sent emails to all of Intel's employees. Intel tried to block Hamidi's emails, then Intel filed a lawsuit for several claims including tresspass to chattel." ess' to the server and the first ammendment." Read on below for a few more notes from Mr. Hands about the Hamidi case (mentioned on Slashdot a few times before). Update: 04/03 00:56 GMT by T : That should be "Hamidi" throughout, not "Hamibi."

"Intel argued that Hamidi's sending the email disturbed the employees and interfered with their business. causing lost productivity.

Hamidi argued that Intel only complained because the the content. That Intel dropped the nuisance claim because Intel would have had to argue the content and that Intel could not file a libel claim, where did not dispute the truth of the statements in the email or the website.

This case will set the lines of control for one's own servers. From the spammer's claims that if you are on the internet, they have full rights to hijack servers and fill your mailbox with viagra offers, to the ability of an ex-friend filing a lawsuit when you asked for the $20 that they borrowed.

I spoke with Hamidi, and he takes the position that if you have email, then you are agreeing to accept non-commercial email because of the 'public access' to the server and the first ammendment."

The case of Intel v. Hamidi has been going on for a few years now, and it's now reached the California Supreme Court. Hamidi is an ex-Intel employee with a grievance against the company who sent several mass-emails to most of Intel's staff. Intel attempted to block him from sending email via technical measures, and when that failed filed suit against him claiming that he was causing some harm to their property (company mail servers and computers) - there's an ancient legal concept called "trespass to chattels" which Intel is attempting to use in their case. Now, in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little - a few megabytes of email more or less is a miniscule cost in terms of computer wear and tear, indeed, too small to measure (Intel is not alleging that Hamidi sent any sort of mail-bomb or that his emails caused damage). So the case comes down to an unsettled legal point: if someone has made some use of your electronic equipment, which you may not have desired but which has not damaged your property nor deprived you of its use, do you have a legal cause of action against them?