Re: Intel v. Hamidi and linking technologies

[espositoj@att.net]

Well, isn't the tone backwards here?  One would hope that unauthorized
linking WOULD constitute "trespass to chattels."  When the network being
compromised is a big, ugly corporation like Intel or __________ (provide
your favorite whipping boy here), it's easy to take the side of freedom,
freedom, freedom.  But networks are becoming ubiquitous; I am working now
on a home network (802.11b wireless) with my 10-year-old son on a
different computer three feet away from me.  Is anyone seriously
suggesting that residential networks, small business networks, paid
public-access networks (a la Starbucks and T-Mobile), networks at
religious institutions, and so forth do not have a valid claim to police
their own virtual grounds?  I would put this topic under the heading of
"be careful what you wish for."

In any event, this is not a free speech issue.  Intel is not the
government-- and thank god for that.

Joe Esposito
espositoj@att.net

			
> Colleagues,
> 
> The September issue of Red Herring magazine ran an article on the Intel v.
> Hamidi lawsuit. Briefly: Intel is suing an ex-employee based on e-mails he
> sent to employees. In Intel using the 'trespass to chattels' doctrine the
> article claims that the fallout from the case could be damaging (a la "In
> the future...companies could be sued for trespass to chattels just for
> linking to other sites.") My question to the forum is what potentially
> damaging effect said fallout could have on linking technologies (thinking
> here specifically of OpenURL and its institutional service component).
> 
> Full article: http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue117/4494.html
> 
> Kind regards, Jennifer De Beer