More on Intel v. Hamidi 243
The case of Intel v. Hamidi has been going on for a few years now, and it's now reached the California Supreme Court. Hamidi is an ex-Intel employee with a grievance against the company who sent several mass-emails to most of Intel's staff. Intel attempted to block him from sending email via technical measures, and when that failed filed suit against him claiming that he was causing some harm to their property (company mail servers and computers) - there's an ancient legal concept called "trespass to chattels" which Intel is attempting to use in their case. Now, in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little - a few megabytes of email more or less is a miniscule cost in terms of computer wear and tear, indeed, too small to measure (Intel is not alleging that Hamidi sent any sort of mail-bomb or that his emails caused damage). So the case comes down to an unsettled legal point: if someone has made some use of your electronic equipment, which you may not have desired but which has not damaged your property nor deprived you of its use, do you have a legal cause of action against them?
Am I the only one...? (Score:3, Funny)
1. The case between Intel and AMD has also been going on for some years.
2. AMD was also started by an ex-Intel guy with a grievance against the company.
The part that finally made me realise we weren't talking about AMD was this:
[...] in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little.
RMN
~~~
Where could this go? (Score:5, Funny)
If you run an email server, expect to recieve email. It's that simple.
Now then, if measures to block unwelcome email are put into place and those measures are intentionally avoided through indirection or otherwise subversive means, it implies that the sender has fore-knowledge that his emails are unwelcome and is acting against the will of the email recipient.
I don't see how this conflicts at all with the current position most people have on SPAM.
This guy has reportedly circumvented attempts to block him and so the question is whether or not that was intentional. Did he follow accepted email practices and represent himself honestly? If not, I would consider it a form of trespass just as I consider spamming a form of inappropriate use of my mail server for their advertisements. (If any spammer wants to purchase space on my email server, he is welcome to negotiate a deal of course, but my server is not FREE.)
So this guy feels the need to pass along the information he has gathered to people who might suffer the same problems he has experienced. It should be his right and should be guaranteed and preserved. But that doesn't give him the right to bring his material into the offices of the people he wants to educate... either in person or electronically.
If he knows their non-intel email addresses, I wouldn't see any problem at all. If he wants to stand on the street outside of Intel's buildings handing out flyers; again, no problem!
I don't want to see this guy lose, but at the same time, the consequences of him winning on this particular matter could hurt the internet community and that would suck. If Intel wins, it could actually be a better win for all of us who oppose SPAM.
Re:OK, so which is it . . . (Score:3, Funny)
My ex girlfriend used to say that too...
Sorry, couldn't resist