1.United States v Thomas,

If the implied permission is to do what seems necessary as part of the

job, doesnt the employers implied permission really boil down to the subjective intent of the

employee? And note that the Fifth Circuit in Thomas seems really focused on Thomass intent:

Was he trying to help his employer or hurt him? Is that the right standard?

2. Pulte Homes in Note 3 seems reasonable, but Yoder & Frey in Note 4 seems wrong.

While considering 1030(a)(5) is about damaging the computer are there legal lines here that explain the difference between the two.