Re: Intel v. Hamidi


To CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
From Bob Stock <bstock@ATTYMAIL.COM>
Date Sat, 1 May 1999 18:59:11 -0700
In-Reply-To <000301be940c$93b84cc0$65961b26@deepthought >
References <Pine.SOL.3.95.990501143248.4803C-100000@comp >
Reply-To Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

I'm trying to understand what's going on in this case and, putting silly
tiffs aside, what some of the list members think about the legal issues.
Admittedly, it's a little hard to analyze the judge's ruling in the absence
of a written decision.  Perhaps at some point someone will post a
transcript of the hearing, but, even so, most California trial decisions
don't engage in a lot of analysis.

In any event, as a starting point, I'd like to compare what Hamidi did to
Intel to what Cyber Promotions (CP) did to CompuServe.  First, I'll point
out some differences I'm aware of between the two incidents, and, after,
I'll pose some questions to the list.

Differences:

a.  The content of the e-mail.  In Hamidi's case it was expressive,
personal speech, whereas in CP's case it was commercial speech.

b.  The amount of e-mail.  In CP's case there was significantly more e-mail.

c.  Some (most? all?) of the CP e-mail had forged headers.

d.  The relationship between CP and its subscribers (the end-recipients of
the e-mail) is different from the relationship between Intel and its
employees (the end-recipients).

Questions:

1.  Was the CompuServe case correctly decided?

2.  Was the Intel case correctly decided?

3.  If your answer to #1 is yes but your answer to #2 is no, why?  Because
of any of the differences I've noted above or because of some other
difference(s)?

4.  Do you agree with this statement from the CompuServe case:

"In the present action, CompuServe is a private company. Moreover, the mere
judicial enforcement of neutral trespass laws by the private owner of
property does not alone render it a state actor. Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise
on Constitutional Law @ 16.3, 546 (West 1992). Defendants do not argue that
CompuServe is anything other than a private actor."

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015, 1026 (S.D.
Ohio 1997).

The more explanation for people's answers the better.  Also, of course, any
additional constructive comments are welcome.

-------------------------------------
Bob Stock <bstock@attymail.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/
-------------------------------------


Partial thread listing:
Re: Intel v. Hamidi, (continued)