Res Ipsa Loquitur

What the court actually held is that Intel did not meet the requirement of showing actual damage to their computer systems, which is required by the California law of trespass to chattels. (Which is just legalese for "you damaged my property asshat") So while there may have been damages caused by loss of employee productivity (i.e., lost company time reading & discussing the emails), that is not the same as damage to the computer equipment itself (router crashed due to overload)....and that's the type of damage required under the law of trespass to chattels.

After reviewing the decisions analyzing unauthorized electronic contact with computer systems as potential trespasses to chattels, we conclude that 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. 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 or possession of, or any other legally protected interest in, the personal property itself. (See Zaslow v. Kroenert (1946) 29 Cal.2d 541, 551; Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (C.D.Cal., Aug. 10, 2000, No. 99CV7654) 2000 WL 1887522, p. *4; Rest.2d Torts, § 218.) The consequential economic damage Intel claims to have suffered, i.e., loss of productivity caused by employees reading and reacting to Hamidi’s messages and company efforts to block the messages, is not an injury to the company’s interest in its computers—which worked as intended and were unharmed by the communications—any more than the personal distress caused by reading an unpleasant letter would be an injury to the recipient’s mailbox, or the loss of privacy caused by an intrusive telephone call would be an injury to the recipient’s telephone equipment.

Not exactly what most people would think of when they read "illegal trespassing to its computer system". Now, you may be thinking this is all interesting, but not very, since the emails, like spam, had nothing to do with legitimate business communications. The guy still used the company's email system without permission, so why didn't they just sue him for regular trespassing?

Because they couldn't. Oh, they initially did, but dropped that part of the suit before it went to trial. Here's why.

Intel Corporation (Intel) maintains an electronic mail system, connected to the Internet, through which messages between employees and those outside the company can be sent and received, and permits its employees to make reasonable nonbusiness use of this system....Hamidi breached no computer security barriers in order to communicate with Intel employees.

If you've got a wide open system, then it's wide open to everyone....much like if you let some of the public take a shortcut across your lawn, then pretty soon everyone can take a shortcut across your lawn. Remember that the next time you bitch about your company's restrictive e-mail & Internet access policy. They're not just being hateful, there's actually several reasons for it....virus email attachments also springs to mind.

And this ruling doesn't mean that spammers can bombard companies with spam and the end of civilization as we know as the NYT article implies.

"Everyone is trying to figure out ways to solve the spam problem, and this ruling doesn't help," said Jeffrey D. Neuburger, a technology lawyer with Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner in New York. "This is going to require lawyers to come up with other ways to deal with the issue."

Like what, come up with a legal theory that, I dunno, actually meets the requirements of the law? Get a grip, Jeffrey. What this case is going to require is that companies get their heads out of their collective asses and deal with their network security issues. Jeez, you'd think a company like Intel would know better.

What a repressive concept....restricting use of a business computer network for business purposes only.

[/sarcasm]