Intel Corporation v. Hamidi case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
71 P.3d 296
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff company sued
defendant, a former employee, claiming that by communicating with its
employees over its electronic mail (e-mail) system defendant
committed the tort of trespass to chattels. The trial court granted
the company's motion for summary judgment and enjoined defendant from
any further mailings. The Court of Appeal, Third District,
California, affirmed. The instant court granted defendant's petition
for review.
FACTS: On six occasions over almost two years, defendant sent e-mails criticizing the company's employment practices to numerous current employees on the company's e-mail system. Defendant breached no computer security barriers in order to communicate with the company's employees. He offered to, and did, remove from his mailing list any recipient who so wished. Defendant's communications caused neither physical damage nor functional disruption to the company's computers, nor did they deprive the company of the use of its computers. The contents of the messages, however, caused discussion among employees and managers.
FACTS: On six occasions over almost two years, defendant sent e-mails criticizing the company's employment practices to numerous current employees on the company's e-mail system. Defendant breached no computer security barriers in order to communicate with the company's employees. He offered to, and did, remove from his mailing list any recipient who so wished. Defendant's communications caused neither physical damage nor functional disruption to the company's computers, nor did they deprive the company of the use of its computers. The contents of the messages, however, caused discussion among employees and managers.
ANALYSIS:
The instant court concluded that the
company did not present undisputed facts demonstrating an injury to
its personal property, or to its legal interest in that property,
that supported, under California tort law, an action for trespass to
chattels. Regarding constitutional considerations, the principal of a
right not to listen, founded in personal autonomy, could not justify
the sweeping injunction issued against all communication to the
company's addresses, for such a right, logically, could be exercised
only by, or at the behest of, the recipient himself or
herself.
CONCLUSION: The judgment of the court of appeal was reversed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment of the court of appeal was reversed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment