Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Check out Derek Slater on Judge Richard Posner's decision in the Madster and Aimster case. Yesterday, the judge ruled against the file sharing services as expected.

In another long running Internet law dispute, the California supreme court ruled yesterday in favour of a former Intel employee, Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi. The company had complained that Hamidi had interfered with employee productivity by sending mass emails on six separate occasions over two years to up to 35000 Intel employees, criticising the company's employment practices. He did not breach any security systems and offered to and did remove anyone from his list who did not wish to recieve his emails any further. There was no argument that the conduct had deprived Intel of the use of their computer system. Intel alleged that Hamidi committed the tort of tresspass to chattels and the court at first instance and the court of appeal had ruled in their favour. The California Supreme court, however, on a split 5-4 decision said that "Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property, i.e. the computer system, because it does not interfere with the possessor's use of or possession of, or other legally protected interest in, the personal property itself." They also said "Our conclusion does not rest on any special immunity for communications by electronic mail; we do not hold that messages transmitted through the Internet are exempt from the ordinary rules of tort liablity." And thye distinguished the case from others where spammers had been held liable but where the volume mail had been so high as to interfere with the operation of the system which constituted the personal property. "...under California law, the tort does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning." I recall the case originally raising cyber-libertarians because it was claimed that Mr Hamidi's right to free speech was being impaired. It's an interesting decision.

No comments: