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.
