Intel v. Hamidi Oral Arguments

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."

Comments

Dangerous legal foundation!

[Alsee]

If they want to go after this guy with a harrassment suit or something, then fine. But Intel is persuing this case on an extremely dangerous legal premise. They want to extend the legal premise of "trespass to chattel" to the internet data. The theory is that his messages (electrons) TRESSPASSED on Intel's computers. The EFF has an article on trespass to chattel and the internet.

Sure trespass to chattel could be (and at times has been) twisted to deal with spammers, but that would also mean it can be used to attack ANYTHING on the internet. The cure would be worse than the disease. Any and every internet message would be subject to tresspass violations from each and every server it crosses. This (long) paper explains how trespass to chattel can essentially destroy the internet as we know it.

Trespass to chattel should NOT be twisted to apply on the internet. Any judge who does needs to be hit with a cluestick.

-