News
[PSUs]| Tuesday 1st July 2003 |
The long-running dispute between Intel and Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi began six-years ago after Hamidi was fired by Intel. He responded by blitzing Intel's email system - sending complaints about its work practices to those who had been his fellow workers - and that's when Intel took legal action.
As the New York Times reports, the case also has legal implications for companies resisting spam.
While Hamidi had relied on a defence of free-speech, the court actually ruled on whether
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
The paper quotes Dave Kramer, partner at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, as saying 'This is clearly one of the most important cyberlaw decisions of the year, if not the decade, because it is removing what could have been a serious impediment to the free flow of information on the Internet.' However, he also adds: 'For those looking for ways to prevent Internet abuse, this decision will not be welcome because it limits one of the weapons available to combat it.'
While the court said its ruling related to this case in particular and that it should not be applied directly to spam-related cases, the finding does not send a promising signal for the wider fight against spam. The US paper points out that the case 'raises the bar' for companies looking to block unauthorised access to their computers.
Submit to: Digg | Slashdot | Del.icio.us | Technorati
Intel Atom, 1.6 Ghz, 1024 MB, 120 GB
ASUS Eee PC 2G Surf Intel Celeron 800MHz / 512MB
Intel Celeron M, 0.8 Ghz, 512 MB, 2 GB
Acer Aspire 5920 Gemstone Intel Core 2 Duo T7300
Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 Ghz, 2048 MB, 120 GB
Samsung R700 Santa Rosa Intel Core 2 Duo T8100 2.
Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.1 Ghz, 3072 MB, 320 GB







