Miller v. Cp Chemicals Inc.

808 F.Supp. 1238 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a former employee of D. P alleges that he owns the copyrights to computer programs he developed while he was employed by D. P alleges that D has continued to use these programs without authorization and that such use constitutes copyright infringement, breach of an employment contract, wrongful conversion, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. P was initially employed by D as a technician in the quality control laboratory. His job entailed analyzing finished products to assure their conformance to customer specifications. After about three months, P was promoted to the position of senior laboratory chemist. In that capacity, he used a Lotus 1-2-3 software package, which he had requested that D purchase, to key in the company's computer analytical data regarding customer product specifications. In February 1989 P was promoted to laboratory supervisor and, in that capacity, assumed overall responsibility for the operation of the quality control laboratory. P organized the laboratory's records to meet EPA and OSHA regulations. P also completed the computerization of all analytical data generated in the lab. To improve efficiency, P wrote a computer program that computed complex mathematical calculations, eliminating manual calculations previously used to make the required adjustments. This computer program simplified his duties and reduced the chance of error in calculation. P's supervisors approached him regarding computerizing the calculations for other product adjustments. They told P to continue writing the programs, and P did develop more computer programs. P performed most of the work on the computer programs at his home and on his own time. P was an employee paid by the hour. He never requested or received additional or overtime pay for his work on the computer programs. P claims that his supervisors orally agreed with him that he would retain the copyrights in the computer programs that he developed and that D could use them only so long as he remained employed with D. P was terminated following his arrest on a drug-related charge. P demanded that D either return the computer programs that he had written or pay him a license fee for continued use of the programs. D refused. The computer programs contained a line that stated that the copyrights were reserved in the name of P. However, this copyright notice was in the program code only and was not displayed on the screen when the program was booted onto the computer hardware.