( Intel Corp. v. Hamidi )
California Supreme Court

This is a recent California Supreme Court case that has many organizations involved; some for and some against granting an injunction to prevent Mr. Hamidi from sending e-mails to Intel employees. The judges discussed at length about legal logic and came up with many interesting metaphors.

Hamidi, a former Intel employee, on 6 occasions sent e-mails to Intel employees through the Intel electronic system. He removed any recipients who asked to be removed. His messages were anti-Intel and at one time numbered over 35,000.

Intel sued to stop him from doing so. The trial court granted an injunction and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The California Supreme Court reversed the ruling in favor of Hamidi was 4 to 3. Intel compares the unpermitted use of its e-mail system something like the trespass to land. Hamidi claims free speech.

The majority did not think a metaphor used by the lower court that of trespass to land (and then trespass to chattel) is an appropriate comparison. The metaphor imagines the e-mail sent by Hamidi as electronic messengers entering Intel's land without permission. Then, these electronic messengers burst out from the computers rushing through the hallway to Intel employees reading Hamidi's messages.

The majority compares the act of Hamidi to one where a protester is holding a sign or shouting through bull horn outside Intel, or sending a letter through the mail or telephoning to complain. There is no damage to Intel.

The dissenting Justice compare Hamidi's act to one where he goes into a private mailroom and dumps off unwanted mail on 30,000 desks.

Which do you think is the more appropriate metaphor?