Tweet
A Victory for Spammers.
California court rules against Intel in spam case
REUTERS[ WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 2003 11:42:24 AM ]
SAN FRANCISCO: The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled spammers cannot be sued under state law for property trespass for just sending e-mail - a setback for Intel Corp. - which had sued a former engineer for sending e-mails to up to 35,000 company workers.
The 4-3 ruling reversed a lower court order prohibiting former Intel engineer Ken Hamidi from sending e-mails critical of Intel to thousands of its employees.
Intel claimed the e-mails had trespassed on its private network and had harmed the company by reducing worker productivity.
But the California Supreme Court found that Intel's computer system had not been damaged as a result of the e-mails and, therefore, there was no trespass.
The court declined to expand state common law covering property trespass to apply to e mail whose contents may be objectionable, but which is otherwise harmless.
"Creating an absolute property right to exclude undesired communications from one's e-mail and Web servers might help force spammers to internalize the costs they impose on ISPs (Internet service providers) and their customers," the court wrote.
"But such a property rule might also create substantial new costs, to e-mail and e-commerce users and to society generally, in lost ease and openness of communication and in lost network benefits," the opinion continued. "In light of the unresolved controversy, we would be acting rashly to adopt a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes of trespass law."
Ken Olson, a San Francisco lawyer for Hamidi, said that means that if someone wants to bring a trespass lawsuit there needs to be proof that the computer system was damaged.
The ruling comes amid a larger battle to curtail spam with Microsoft Corp. and other ISPs suing spammers and federal lawmakers introducing strong anti-spam legislation. The California State Senate has approved a bill that would allow people to sue spammers.
Between 1996 and 1998 Hamidi sent six e-mails to as many as 35,000 Intel workers complaining about Intel's employment practices after he was fired following a disability leave.
Hamidi said he did not breach Intel's computer system and removed people from the list if they requested it.
Intel filed a lawsuit against Hamidi and a Sacramento Superior court issued a summary judgment ordering him to stop sending the e-mails. Hamidi appealed, a divided appeals court affirmed the lower court decision, and he appealed to the state's highest court.
In ruling against Intel, the California Supreme Court said the situation would be similar to someone claiming a mailbox was harmed after reading an unpleasant letter or the telephone was harmed after receiving an intrusive phone call.
Hamidi's lawyers had argued that preventing him from sending the e-mails had violated his rights to free speech, a point on which the state Supreme Court did not specifically rule.
"We're studying the opinion to assess our options as to what we can do in the event Hamidi resumes his spamming of Intel," said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy.
Hamidi, who now works as a compliance officer for the California Franchise Tax Board, said he will continue sending e-mails to Intel workers, possibly weekly, to discuss Intel's labor practices.
"For five years I have been muzzled," he said in an interview. "I'm amazingly excited. I cannot describe the feeling."
REUTERS[ WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 2003 11:42:24 AM ]
SAN FRANCISCO: The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled spammers cannot be sued under state law for property trespass for just sending e-mail - a setback for Intel Corp. - which had sued a former engineer for sending e-mails to up to 35,000 company workers.
The 4-3 ruling reversed a lower court order prohibiting former Intel engineer Ken Hamidi from sending e-mails critical of Intel to thousands of its employees.
Intel claimed the e-mails had trespassed on its private network and had harmed the company by reducing worker productivity.
But the California Supreme Court found that Intel's computer system had not been damaged as a result of the e-mails and, therefore, there was no trespass.
The court declined to expand state common law covering property trespass to apply to e mail whose contents may be objectionable, but which is otherwise harmless.
"Creating an absolute property right to exclude undesired communications from one's e-mail and Web servers might help force spammers to internalize the costs they impose on ISPs (Internet service providers) and their customers," the court wrote.
"But such a property rule might also create substantial new costs, to e-mail and e-commerce users and to society generally, in lost ease and openness of communication and in lost network benefits," the opinion continued. "In light of the unresolved controversy, we would be acting rashly to adopt a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes of trespass law."
Ken Olson, a San Francisco lawyer for Hamidi, said that means that if someone wants to bring a trespass lawsuit there needs to be proof that the computer system was damaged.
The ruling comes amid a larger battle to curtail spam with Microsoft Corp. and other ISPs suing spammers and federal lawmakers introducing strong anti-spam legislation. The California State Senate has approved a bill that would allow people to sue spammers.
Between 1996 and 1998 Hamidi sent six e-mails to as many as 35,000 Intel workers complaining about Intel's employment practices after he was fired following a disability leave.
Hamidi said he did not breach Intel's computer system and removed people from the list if they requested it.
Intel filed a lawsuit against Hamidi and a Sacramento Superior court issued a summary judgment ordering him to stop sending the e-mails. Hamidi appealed, a divided appeals court affirmed the lower court decision, and he appealed to the state's highest court.
In ruling against Intel, the California Supreme Court said the situation would be similar to someone claiming a mailbox was harmed after reading an unpleasant letter or the telephone was harmed after receiving an intrusive phone call.
Hamidi's lawyers had argued that preventing him from sending the e-mails had violated his rights to free speech, a point on which the state Supreme Court did not specifically rule.
"We're studying the opinion to assess our options as to what we can do in the event Hamidi resumes his spamming of Intel," said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy.
Hamidi, who now works as a compliance officer for the California Franchise Tax Board, said he will continue sending e-mails to Intel workers, possibly weekly, to discuss Intel's labor practices.
"For five years I have been muzzled," he said in an interview. "I'm amazingly excited. I cannot describe the feeling."
Comment