The case was brought in April 1997 by DSC Communications (subsequently acquired by Alcatel), against employee Evan Brown. The company alleged that Brown, who had been working with DSC for 10 years, withheld an idea for software, in spite of a contract requiring him to disclose any inventions he conceived or developed in the course of his employment. In the lawsuit, the company was seeking possession of Brown’s thoughts.
Brown had conceived a method for converting machine-executable binary code into high-level source code which he developed, he claimed, in his own time and not in the course of his employment.
He told his employers that he had an idea that he wanted to pursue with his employers’ support – but he did not disclose the idea. DSC demanded that Brown disclose the idea. It claimed that it owned the thought, even if it was not expressed in any tangible form at the time. When Brown refused to disclose it, he was fired and sued.
On 26th July, five and a half years after the action was raised, Alcatel prevailed. The Texas district court reasoned that Brown’s employment contract was valid and enforceable. Therefore his thoughts, which were characterised as “invention” in the decision, should be disclosed to Alcatel. The judge also ordered Brown to pay Alcatel’s legal fees, which exceeded $330,000.
Brown, who represented himself before the court, maintained that his thoughts did not meet the definition of “invention” at the time when the lawsuit was filed. He said he would appeal the ruling.
Alcatel’s lawyer, on the other hand, claimed that the decision was based on legal doctrines that are “well-accepted” in the state of Texas.