An Alternative to eBay:

Intel v. Hamidi
By Richard Warner

Tutorial

begin
 Facts of Intel v. Hamidi

Hamidi, a former Intel employee, sent e-mails to current

employees criticizing Intels employment practices. On each
of six occasions, he sent up to 35,000 emails. Intel
demanded that Hamidi stop sending the emails, but Hamidi
continued to do so.

Hamidis sending the emails constitutes intentional,

unauthorized use of Intels computers (at least it does so after
Intels demand that Hamidi cease sending emails).

(a) True

(b) False
 Correct!

Hamidi intentionally sends the emails and thereby makes use

of Intels computers to deliver them to the recipients
inboxes. The use is unauthorized, at least after Intel explicitly
notifies him that he is not authorized to send the emails.z

back next
 Trespass?

Given that sending the emails was an intentional,

unauthorized use of Intels computers, Hamidi is liable for
trespass to chattels if sending the emails impaired the value of
the computers, or harmed a legally protected interest.

(a) Yes

(b) No
 Correct!

Correct. You commit trespass to chattels if you (1)

intentionally use someones personal property (2) without
authorization and (3) thereby impair the value of the property,
or harm a legally protected interest.

back next
 The Result Under eBay

Intel tried to prevent Hamidi from sending the emails, but

Hamidi evaded their attempts to block delivery. Thus, his
sending the emails constituted an intentional, unauthorized
use that was repeated and unpreventable.

Therefore, under eBay, the use

(a) did not impair the value of the computers and was not a
trespass.

(b) impaired the value of the computers and was a trespass.

 Correct!

Correct. eBay is best read as holding that intentional,

unauthorized access to a computer which is repeated and
unpreventable impairs the value of the computer and hence is
a trespass.

back next
 The Intel Rejection of eBay

The Intel court rejects the eBay approach. The court holds
that, at a minimum, impairment of value requires the placing
of a significant burden on a computers computing
capacity. The court holds that Hamidis emails did not place a
significant burden on Intels computers and hence the court
holds that the emails did not impair the value of the
computers. The court also holds that there the emails did not
cause any economic or financial loss to Intel that would
constitute a harm to a legally protected interest. Hence, the
court found that there was no trespass.

next
You have completed this tutorial.
 Incorrect.

Incorrect. Hamidi intentionally sends the emails and thereby

makes use of Intels computers to deliver them to the
recipients inboxes. The use is unauthorized, at least after
Intel explicitly notifies him that he is not authorized to send
the emails.

back next
 Incorrect.

Incorrect. You commit trespass to chattels if you (1)

intentionally use someones personal property (2) without
authorization and (3) thereby impair the value of the property,
or harm a legally protected interest.

back next
 Incorrect.

Incorrect. eBay is best read as holding that intentional,

unauthorized access to a computer which is repeated and
unpreventable impairs the value of the computer and hence is
a trespass.

back next