Intel Brief

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi 71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003) Parties and Facts: Intel Corp, plaintiff, sued Hamidi, defendant and former employee of P, for trespass to chattel. D had sent uncomplimentary emails over P s inter-office e-mail system criticizing Intel s employment practices, but did not breach any computer security barriers, and did not cause any physical/functional disruption to P s computers, nor did he deprive P of the use of its computers. Procedural Posture: Trial court grants P a summary judgment for injunction, Court of appeals affirms. Hamidi appeals to the California Supreme Court. Issue: Does an e-mail sent over an inter-office communication system (causing no damage to the computer or functionality of the system) constitute a trespass to chattel? Holding and Reasoning: No, an electronic communication sent over an inter-office communication system does not constitute a trespass to chattel because there was no tangible harm done. Trespass to chattels allows for recovery only for interferences with the possession of personal property (either with or without physical damage), but an electronic communication does not constitute as trespass to chattels because it does not interfere with the owner s use and/or possession of the computer itself, nor does it disrupt the functionality of P s server. If the court had ruled in favor of P, the California tort law would be extended beyond its current perimeters. Rule: Trespass to chattels does not include an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer nor impairs its functionality. Disposition: Reversed.