|
''Intel Corp. v. Hamidi'', 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), is a decision of the California Supreme Court, authored by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar. In ''Hamidi'' the California Supreme Court held that a former Intel Corporation employee's e-mails to current Intel employees, despite requests by Intel to stop sending messages, did not constitute trespass of Intel's e-mail system. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi was a former Intel employee who sent e-mails criticizing Intel to current Intel employees. Because the messages caused discussion among employees, Intel asserted that these communications constitute trespass to chattels under California law. The trial court agreed and enjoined Hamidi from sending additional e-mails. Hamidi appealed his decision to the court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4-3, reversed. The decision was notable because the court declined to extend common law trespass claims to the computer context, absent actual damage. As the court stated:
==Background== Hamidi was a former engineer at Intel's Automotive Group when September 1990, he was injured in a car accident while returning from a business trip on behalf of Intel.〔Chang, Harriet. "Intel E-mail Case Heads to the High Court." San Francisco Chronicle 02 Apr. 2003: A-4. 〕 He returned to work for 18 months until his worsening physical condition caused him to take a medical leave on January 27, 1992 at the advice of Intel's doctors.〔Intel Corporation V. Kouroush Kenneth Hamidi and FACE - Intel, No. 98AS05067 (Superior Court of the State of California - County of Sacramento November 12, 1998).〕 He remained on medical leave until he was fired on April 17, 1995 for failing to return to work after the medical leave.〔Dolan, Maura. "Ruling Lets Unwanted E-mail In." Los Angeles Times 01 July 2003: A1+.〕 After termination, Hamidi formed a support group for former and current employees of Intel: Associated X-Employees of Intel (AXE-Intel), later renamed Former And Current Employees of Intel (FACE-Intel).〔Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003)〕 Over a 21-Month period, Hamidi sent six waves of e-mails to Intel employees on behalf of the organization.〔Egelco, Bob. "E-mail Barrage is Legal, Court Says." San Francisco Chronicle 01 July 2003: A-1.〕 The e-mails were critical of Intel's employment practices and encouraged employees to become involved in FACE-Intel. Each e-mail stated that the recipient could notify the sender to remove them from the mailing list, and Hamidi stopped sending e-mails to those who requested.〔Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003)〕 Although some of the e-mails were blocked by Intel's internal filters, Hamidi succeeded in evading blocking efforts by using different sending computers. In March, 1998 Intel demanded that Hamidi and FACE-Intel stop sending e-mails, but he sent another mass e-mail in September, 1998. Intel sued Hamidi and FACE-Intel pleading cause of action for trespass to chattel and nuisance seeking damages and an injunction against further messages. Intel later dismissed its nuisance claim and waived the demand for damages. The trial court granted Intel's request for summary judgment and set a permanent injunction against Hamidi and FACE-Intel from sending unsolicited e-mails to the company.〔Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1347-48 (Cal. 2003)〕 Hamidi appealed the decision, and with one justice dissenting, the appellate court found that Intel "showed he was disrupting its business by using its property and therefore is entitled to injunctive relief based on a theory of trespass to chattels."〔Intel Corporation V. Kouroush Kenneth Hamidi and FACE - Intel, No. 98AS05067 (Superior Court of the State of California - County of Sacramento November 12, 1998).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Intel Corp. v. Hamidi」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|