In the process, the dispute clarified much of the language used in the law, which had been heavily revised in a number of updates passed in the years after its initial drafting.

Morris' underestimation of the rate of reinfection causing this safeguard to be ineffective, and "tens of thousands" of computers were rendered catatonic by repeated infections.

[5] The Government disagreed, stating that since a comma separated the "intentionally" phrase from the rest of the section, it did not necessarily apply.

There is no evidence that Congress intended to make it legal to accidentally damage another computer, therefore the "intentionally" specification was not made there.

[8] To contest this claim, Morris cited a different section of the Senate Report: "[t]he new subsection 1030(a)(5) to be created by the bill is designed to penalize those who intentionally alter, damage, or destroy certain computerized data belonging to another.

The court reasoned that since Morris' worm reached computers spanning U.S. government departments, including military ones,[4] 18 U.S.C.

The court also pointed out that since Morris used the sendmail and finger programs in a way they were not intended to be used, his "exceeded authorization" defense was further weakened.

[11] Morris also contended that the District Court wrongly did not instruct the jury on "exceeding authorized access" using his proposed definition.

[1] In 1996 the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was amended again to clarify the intent problems that made up the majority of U.S. v. Morris.

The adverbs "knowingly" and "intentionally" were inserted in more places in the statute, in an attempt to make litigation with the law simpler in the future.