Intel Corp. v. Hamidi
Citation | 94 Cal.App.4th 325,114 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 |
Decision Date | 10 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. C033076.,C033076. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | INTEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kourosh Kenneth HAMIDI, Defendant and Appellant. |
Philip H. Weber, Placerville, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ann Brick for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California; Christopher A. Hansen for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York; and Deborah Pierce for Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amici Curiae for Defendant and Appellant.
Morrison & Foerster, Linda E. Shostak, Michael A. Jacobs, San Francisco, and Kurt E. Springmann, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi was fired by Intel Corporation, he began to air grievances about the company. Hamidi repeatedly flooded Intel's e-mail system. When its security department was unable to block or otherwise end Hamidi's mass emails, Intel filed this action. The trial court issued a permanent injunction stopping the campaign, on a theory of trespass to chattels.
On appeal Hamidi, supported by Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), urges trespass to chattels was not proven and, even if it was, the injunction violates free speech principles which require the elements of the tort be tempered in cases involving speech. We shall affirm.
Intel filed a brief complaint, alleging it maintains an internal, proprietary, e-mail system for use of its employees; the e-mail addresses are confidential; defendant Hamidi and FACE-Intel (Former and Current Employees of Intel, a defaulting party which did not appeal) obtained Intel's e-mail address list and on several occasions sent e-mail to up to 29,000 employees; on March 17, 1998, Intel sent a letter demanding Hamidi stop, but he refused. The complaint sought remedies based on theories of nuisance and trespass to chattels.
Intel moved for summary judgment and submitted a set of undisputed facts which Hamidi did not dispute. They establish: Hamidi is the FACE-Intel webmaster and spokesperson. He sent e-mails to between 8,000 and 35,000 Intel employees on six specific occasions. He ignored Intel's request to stop and took steps to evade its security measures. Intel's employees "spend significant amounts of time attempting to block and remove HAMIDI's e-mail from the INTEL computer systems," which are governed by policies which "limit use of the e-mail system to company business."
Hamidi filed a declaration in opposition to summary judgment, explaining His six mass e-mailings
Intel dropped its nuisance theory and claim for damages, and the trial court granted summary judgment. It issued an injunction that "defendants, their agents, servants, assigns, employees, officers, directors, and all those acting in concert for or with defendants are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from sending unsolicited e-mail to addresses on INTEL's computer systems." Hamidi timely appealed.
We review the judgment de nov o. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493; Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1830, 1836, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 913; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c) & subd. (o)(2).)
The common law adapts to human endeavor. For example, if rules developed through judicial decisions for railroads prove nonsensical for automobiles, courts have the ability and duty to change them. (See generally, Keller, Condemned to Repeat the Past: The Reemergence of Misappropriation and other Common Law Theories of Protection for Intellectual Property (1998) 11 Harv.J.L. & Tech. 401, 403-406, 423-26.)
Trespass to chattels is somewhat arcane and suffers from desuetude. "The chief importance of the theory today, according to Prosser, is that there may be recovery for interferences with the possession of personal property that are not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, i.e., as a `little brother of conversion.'" (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed.1988, 1999 Supp.) Torts, § 627A, p. 390; see id., § 610, pp. 707-708.) However, the tort has reemerged as an important rule of cyberspace.
We begin with Prosser, who explains: (Prosser and Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) Trespass to Chattels, § 14, p. 85, fns. omitted.)
Although there was litigation over who could bring suit and over formal pleading requirements, the shape of the tort is simple. A leading American court approved this definition: (Holmes v. Doane (1855) 69 Mass. 328, 329.) The most common application is for a physical taking, even if momentary. (See Tubbs v. Delk (Mo.Ct.App.1996) 932 S.W.2d 454 [ ].)
The Restatement is in accord, providing "A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally ... (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another." (Rest.2d Torts, § 217, p. 417.) Most cases involve concrete harm to a chattel, "actual impairment of its physical condition, quality or value to the possessor ... as distinguished from the mere affront to [the owner's] dignity as possessor[.]" (§ 218, com. h, p. 422 [ ].)
The Restatement also provides (§ 218, com. e, pp. 421-422; see Glidden v. Szybiak (1949) 95 N.H. 318, 320, 63 A.2d 233, 235.) This caveat speaks of "nominal damages." Intel does not seek damages, even nominal damages, to compensate for Hamidi's conduct; Intel wants to prevent him from repeating his conduct. In this case, the nature of the remedy sought colors the analysis.
(7 Speiser et al, American Law of Torts (1990) Trespass, § 23:1, p. 592 (Speiser).)
The treatise just quoted states "As a number of very early cases show, any unlawful interference, however slight, with the enjoyment by another of his personal property, is a trespass." (Speiser, supra, § 23:23, p. 667.) The oldest case cited is Rand v. Sargent (1843) 23 Me. 326. Actually, "chasing cattle has been a trespass time out of mind" (Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (10th ed. 1975) Trespass...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Register.Com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.
...(same); CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1015 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (same); Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 94 Cal.App.4th 325 (Cal.Ct.App.2001) (same), pet. for rev. granted, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, 43 P.3d 587 (Mar. 27, 2002); see also Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezene......
-
Sun Valley Packing v. Consep, Inc.
... ... (Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Koppers Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 599, 603, 38 Cal. Rptr.2d 257.) Under this scheme, a ... ...
-
Order Supported by Law: the Enforcement of Rules in Online Communities - Nicolas Suzor
...1 J.L. Econ. & Pol'y 147 (2005). 277. 71 P.3d 296 (2003). 278. Epstein, supra note 276, at 168. 279. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244, 249 (2001), rev'd 71 P.3d 296 (2003). 280. Epstein, supra note 276, at 151; see also David McGowan, The Trespass Trouble and the Metaphor Muddle......
-
The Irrelevance of the First Amendment to the Modern Regulation of the Internet
...in the Treatment of the Good Faith Purchaser, 16 J. Legal Stud. 43, 46 (1987).11. The phrase is used in Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244 (Cal. App. 2001): "We conceive of no public benefit from this wasteful cat-and-mouse game which justifies depriving Intel of an injunction. Id......
-
Screen-scraping and Harmful Cybertrespass After Intel - George H. Fibbe
...(Mosk, J., dissenting). 105. Id. at 301. 106. See id. at 330 (Mosk., J., dissenting). 107. Id. at 301. 108. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244, 246-47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001); see Lemley, supra note 22, at 542 (describing Hamidi's actions as "desirable social conduct"). 109. CompuSer......
-
Review of Legal Resources
...Law of the Horse (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996) at 207. 2. See CompuServe, 962 F.Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997); Intel, 94 Cal.App.4th 325 (2001); Register.com, 126 F.Supp.2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); eBay, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D.Cal. 2000). 3. 17 U.S.C. § 512 (1998). 4. Codifie......