Intel v. Hamidi
Intel v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), arose from actions taken by on Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, who had worked for Intel as an engineer until 1995, when he was fired. Hamidi then created an organization called FACE-Intel (Former and Current Employees of Intel) and posted a Web site posting claims of Intel's alleged mistreatment of its employees. In addition, Hamidi sent six mass e-mails using Intel's electronic mail system, reaching as many as 35,000 employees with each mailing. The e-mails were critical of Intel, and of the company's business practices, and warned current employees that these practices could harm their careers, urging them to leave Intel and work elsewhere. Hamidi offered to remove from his mailing list any employee who asked him to, and complied with any requests he received.
Intel attempted to block Hamidi's mass mailings, but he used different sending computers to thwart the company's efforts. In 1998, Intel sued Hamidi and FACE-Intel, resulting in an injunction that prohibited Hamidi from e-mailing Intel employees. Hamidi appealed, and in 2001, Sacramento's Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, saying that trespass to chattels – interference with someone's personal property – had occurred when Hamidi "disrupt[ed Intel's] business by using its property . . .." Hamidi then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote the opinion for the majority, ruling that Hamidi did not cause any physical damage to any of Intel's property. He had used his own computer to send his letters from his home, and therefore did not trespass on Intel's property. Comparing e-mail to other electronic forms of communication, Werdegar wrote, "[T]he contents of a telephone communication may cause a variety of injuries and may be the basis for a variety of tort actions (e.g., defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy), but the injuries are not to an interest in property, much less real property, and the appropriate tort is not trespass." Electric signals, she wrote, should not be considered as "[T]iny messengers rushing through the hallways of Intel's computers and bursting out of employees' computers to read them Hamidi's missives. . .. [S]uch fictions promise more confusion than clarity in the law." Werdegar further wrote that Intel "must, but does not, demonstrate some measurable loss from the use of its computer system."
As to Intel's claim that the company suffered losses over the time employees spent deleting Hamidi's emails, Werdegar stated that Intel could not assert a property interest against employees' time because employees are not chattels in the legal sense of the term. "Whatever interest Intel may have in preventing its employees from receiving disruptive communications, it is not an interest in personal property, and trespass to chattels is not an action that will lie to protect it," Werdegar wrote.
As for restricting the use of spam, Werdegar wrote that excluding undesired communications from one's e-mail might "create substantial new costs, to e-mail and e-commerce users and to society generally, in lost ease and openness in communication and in lost network benefits." In adopting a rule treating computer serves as real property for purposes of trespass law, "We would be acting rashly," Werdegar stated.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Richard Mosk wrote, "Intel correctly expects protection from an intruder who misuses its proprietary system, its nonpublic directories, and its supposedly controlled connection to the Internet to achieve [Hamidi's] bulk mailing objectives – incidentally, without even having to pay postage."
Mosk further cited America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F. Supp.2d 548 (E.D. Va. 1998), where unwanted e-mails had forced America Online to devote technical resources and staff time to defend its system against the unwanted messages. "The company was not required to show that its computer system was overwhelmed or suffered a diminution in performance; mere use of the system by the defendant was sufficient to allow the plaintiff to prevail on the trespass to chattels claim."
Asked by the Los Angeles Times if he plans to resume his mass e-mailings to Intel employees, Hamidi replied, "Absolutely. I am going to use the privilege to the max."
—Elaine Hargrove-Simon
Silha Fellow and Bulletin Editor