Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More on Intel v. Hamidi

Posted by michael on from the telnet-port-25 dept.

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?

4 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Can't do it by ObviousGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He had no business sending emails to anyone in the company. He couldn't have had any work-related business to take care of that would require spamming the entire company.

    Digital tresspass is a very real problem. One benefit of any laws passed to combat the problem is that spam would be made completely illegal and spammers would be prosecutable under the law.

    Your free speech ends where my ears begin.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Can't do it by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Sending emails is not trespass. they have an email server -- they connect it to the internet -- they want to recieve emails. this guy sent emails, end of story. he had no intent to cause harm and he didn't do so.

      This would be the equivalent of putting someone in jail for "trespass" for sending you a letter in the mail. Its an abuse of the language and the law.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  2. Torn... by xonker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If in Intel wins, it will set a precedent that should make it very easy to sue spammers. On the other hand, this is an example of a large company throwing a tantrum, and they shouldn't be rewarded.

    If they win, I'd be willing to bet it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.

  3. I hope he looses. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He spammed. 29,000 x 6 = 174,000 unrequested emails. If he wanted to raise employee awareness of something, he went about it the wrong way.
    He should have posted his grievances on the www and let people who were interested find them, not spam them.
    Granted, Intel would have sued him regardless and he'd still be in the shithouse, but he would have been in the right.
    If he did the same thing today, couldn't he be sued under anti-spam laws in some states?

    --

    Liberty.