Digital Johnny, Real Johnny

Liars!

As I'm about to be catapulted into my 3rd real week of law school, I have come to a striking realization about the nature of the study of law and all those smart asses who try to tell you what it's like and what to expect. For one, they're pretty much liars... They say that people will be mean and competitive, etc., but I haven't really run into that kind of thing, yet. Yeah, I doubt I'll make any friends, but that's because I'm too paranoid that everyone secretly hates me to actually make friends, but that's another issue.

People also say that there's a lot of reading. No way! Compared to all the reading I had to do for undergrad this is *nothing*! With the sad exception of Torts, I find that I have a very manageable, well paced reading schedule for my classes. However, the relatively short reading assignments are misleading because of all the damned briefing that must be done! Writing out the various facts of the cases, how they were decided in lower courts, applicable rules of law, etc. takes a long ass time, and the more cases I have to do, as in Torts, the more pissed off about briefing I get. So, when people told me there was a lot of reading, they were lying since they should have said, "You'll be spending a good 2/3 of the next 3 years of your life briefing cases" rather than "It's a lot of reading." I was doing the massive amount of Torts reading - 8 cases per class, as opposed to 1-3 in my other classes - the other night when I came across an interesting case about spam mail and how it relates to some weird ass sounding tort called "trespass to chattels." To give you all who are thirsting for knowledge (and can decipher my crazy abbreviations), I'll post my brief for it as an extending entry below... Although I learned about trespass to chattels by reading this case, the best new nugget i got from it was that "spam" is actually a reference to the Monty Python "Spam" sketch... wow, my tuition money at work.

People also say that the first year can be pretty confusing and that you won't know what's going on. I think I still haven't run into that problem yet since all the reading and lectures seem pretty straightforward and are strictly related, but then I just worry that maybe I feel so at ease because I'm really just totally lost and don't even know it! Anyway, this last part cannot possibly be lie because I bet I am lost, and just look at this stuff we have to read!

"Unfortunately, contract, like most of the basic terms constituting
the intellectual tools of law, is conventionally defined in a circular
fashion. By the most common definition, a contract is a promise
for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance
of which the law recognizes as a duty. This amounts to saying that
a contract is a legally enforceable promise. But a promise is legally
enforceable only if it is a contract. Thus nothing less than the whole
body of applicable precedents suffices to define the term 'contract."
(Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp. 258 Minn. 533 (1960))

What kind of definition is that!? It's not one, I'd say.

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
US Dist. Ct. So. Dist. of OH 1997

Facts:
What did the plaintiff ask for and on what grounds? (relief) What position did the defendant take? (defenses) How was the case decided below? By whom was it appealed and on what grounds? What are the decisive facts? (substantive v. procedural facts)
• plaintiff CompuServe (CS) operates computer comm. svc; in addition to allowing access to content within its own network, it allows subscribers access to larger resources on the net; this allows subscribers to send and receive email messages by the internet
• def Cyber Promotions (cyber) is in the business of sending unsolicited email ads on behalf of themselves and their clients to hundreds of thousands of users, many of whom are CS subscribers
• CS notified cyber they are prohibited from using its computer equip. to process and store the unsol. email and has requested they terminate the practice
• def’s have sent an increasing amount of email ads to CS subscribers
• CS has attempted to employ tech means to blow cyber’s emails, but to no avail due to def’s manipulation of data that identifies messages as coming from them
• CS applied for prelim. injunction which would extend the temp. restraining order issued by this court on Oct. 24, 1996, and which would in addition prevent def’s from sending unsol. ads to CS subscribers
• Internet users pay for access, often by the minute, and while there is no per message charge, it takes up their time to process and sift unsol. email, causes them to complain to CS and sometimes to discontinue their subscriptions
• spam is a Monty python reference
• volume of messages burdens their systems
• def assert they have the right to continue to send these messages
• CS contends that in sending spam, def’s are trespassing upon its personal property
• CS predicates is prelim. injunction on the common law theory of trespass to personal property or to chattels, asserting that def’s continued transmission of spam to its computer equip. constitutes an actionable tort
• def’s focus on Restatement §221, which focuses on the dispossession element of trespass and claims that they do not dispossess CS of their systems so they cannot be liable for trespass

Issue(s)/Question(s)
• Does and to what extend does an online computer service have the right to prevent a commercial enterprise from sending unsolicited email advertising to its subscribers?
• Does a company’s sending unsolicited email advertising to subscribers of an online computer service constitute a trespass to chattels against that service’s computer equipment for which the sender is subject to liability?

Rule(s):
What is the principle of the case? (black letter law/statutes)
• Trespass to chattels has evolved from its org. common law application, concerning the asportation of another’s tangible property, to include the unauthorized use of personal property
• there may be recovery for interferences with the possession of chattels which are not sufficiently important to be classified as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered
• Restatement §217(b): a trespass to chattel may be committed by intentionally using or intermeddling with the chattel in poss. of another
o physical intermeddling: intentionally bringing about a physical contact with the chattel. the actor may commit a trespass by an act which brings him into an intended physical contact with a chattel in the poss. of another.
• Electronic signals generated and sent by a computer have been held to be sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause of action.
• It is undisputed that plaint. has a possessory interest in its computer systems
• def’s contact with plaintiff’s computers is clearly intentional. Although emails may travel through the internet over various routes, the messages are affirmatively directed to their destination
• Restatement §218: see case above for text
o It is clear from reading §218 that an interference or intermeddling that does not fit the §221 definition of “dispossession” can nonetheless result in def’s liability for trespass
• recovery may be had for a trespass that causes harm to something in which the possessor has a legally protected interest
o inconveniences of spam decrease the utility of CS’s email service and are foremost in the complaints of customers
o customers get frustrated with spam and discontinue services

Conclusion:
What is the court's decision? (rule + facts = holding) What is the procedural outcome of the case?
• value CS derives from comp equip is derived from extent to which that equip. can serve its customers; volume of spam burdens equip tremendously and def’s recent practice of evading CS’s filters commandeers even more computer resources; these resources are then not avail. to CS’s customers and the value of that equip. to CS is diminished even though it is not physically damaged by def’s conduct
• Def’s intrusions into CS’s computer systems, insofar as they harm plaintiff’s business reputation and goodwill with its customers, are actionable under Restatement §218(d)
• plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted
• temp. restr. order is extended in duration until final judgment is entered in the case
• cyber is enjoined from sending any unsolicited ads to any email address maintained by plaintiff CS during the pendency of the action

Posted by Kristina at September 7, 2003 11:16 PM