Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32 (2003)

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32

Under Cal Law, Trespass to chattels does not encompass, e-mail that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning.

Reasoning:

• Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to person property, i.e. the computer system, because it does not interfere with the possessor’s use or possession of, or any other legally protected interest in, the personal property itself. 


• Loss of productivity is not an injury to the company’s interest in its computers, which worked as intended and were unharmed, and do not cause anymore harm than reading an unpleasant message in one’s mailbox.

Here no trespass to chattel because not INTERFERING or INTERMEDDLING with server.

• Different from “spam” because spam overloads computer systems and hurts functionality of company’s email system whereas here, it is about the contents of the messages. 


• POLICY: “Impairment by content” threatens to stretch trespass law

Facts: Hamidi (D) a former employee of Intel Corp. (P), sent unsolicited e-mail messages to Intel (P) employess over the company intranet, criticizing Intel’s (P) employment practices. Caused neither physical damage nor functional disruption to the computers, nor at any time did they deprive Intel of the use of its computers, but the content of the messages caused discussion among employees.

Rules: Under California Law, trespass to chattels does not encompass an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer nor impairs its functionality. 

Tort of trespass to chattels defined: allows recovery for interferences with possession of  personal property “not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered.” …Under Cal Law, trespass to chattels “lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused some injury either 1) to the chattel, or 2) the plaintiff’s rights in it.”

Under Cal. Law, intangible intrusions on land, including electromagnetic transmission, are not actionable as trespasses unless they cause physical damage to real property, since Hamidi did not physically damage servers, it cannot be considered trespass to land.

Dissent: Intel has spent millions of dollars to maintain and develop computer system. Hamidi used intel’s property to display his message.

More? 

Case Brief:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=710358&doc_no=C033076/

Supreme Court Case Summary: 

Relevance: Common law trespass does not apply to computers absent actual damage.