Intel Corp. v. Hamidi
Legal issue / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Intel Corp. v. Hamidi?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
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.
Intel v. Hamidi | |
---|---|
Full case name | Intel Corporation V. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi |
Citation(s) | 30 Cal. 4th 1342; 71 P.3d 296 |
Case history | |
Prior history | Superior Court of the Sacramento County, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 94 Cal. App. 4th 325 |
Holding | |
There can be no tort of trespass to chattels for electronic communications that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning. | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kathryn Werdegar, joined by Joyce L. Kennard, Carlos R. Moreno, Steven Z. Perren |
Concurrence | Joyce L. Kennard |
Dissent | Stanley Mosk, joined by Ronald M. George |
Dissent | Janice Rogers Brown |
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.