With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than in Steve Jackson Games and Konop. Defendant’s proemail operated to obtain the e-mails before they were received by its intended recipients. While the e-mail in Steve Jackson Games was retrieved from storage in a computer and the website in Konop was accessed under false pretenses, the e-mails in this case were accessed by the procmail as they were being transmitted and in real time. However, the presence of the words “any temporary, intermediate storage” in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17) controls. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the electronic communications in this case were in a form of electronic storage. It may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances. See United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1047-51 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As the stipulation reached by the parties

A: holding intercept did not occur because there was no contemporaneous acquisition but commenting that under the narrow reading of the statute few seizures will constitute interceptions under wiretap act
B: holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act
C: holding that plaintiff could recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act because the profits awarded under the federal trademark statute constitute compensation rather than a penalty while statutory damages are awarded under the copyright act are designed to serve a variety of purposes other than compensation including deterrence and punishment
D: holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act
A.