Roeslin v. District of Columbia
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
921 F. Supp. 793 (1995)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Charles Roeslin, III (plaintiff) worked for the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (the department) as a labor economist. The department’s services involved the tabulation of area employment statistics, which required the manual collection of surveys from employers. Roeslin was tasked with improving the employer response rate, expanding the survey sample size, and developing industry projections. The job required the operation of a computer, but it required no programming skills. However, Roeslin was motivated to create a computer program, the DC-790, to automate the department’s collection of employer surveys. Roeslin’s supervisor advised him not to work on the program. Nevertheless, Roeslin created the program on his own time using his home computer, and then he successfully implemented the program at work. Later, when Roeslin was no longer an employee of the department, he learned that the department was still using the DC-790, with the District of Columbia (defendant) claiming a proprietary interest. Roeslin brought a copyright-infringement suit in federal district court. Roeslin testified that he undertook the program’s creation not for the benefit of the department, but to prove that it could be done and to create more opportunities for himself.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greene, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.