Schalk v. State
Texas Court of Appeals
767 S.W.2d 441 (1988)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Thomas Schalk (defendant) belonged to the team assigned to work on his company’s confidential project for new speech-recognition software. The company took various measures to protect the confidentiality of project-related files, such as requiring Schalk and other team members to sign nondisclosure agreements, implementing password-protected file access, using identity badges, security guards, secure work spaces, and video monitoring, and holding frequent team meetings focused on security. Before quitting the company and going to work for a rival firm, Schalk made copies of his own project files. Schalk also copied information from the project team’s so-called speech-utility directory. Schalk later shared these files with his new employer and occasionally described the files as stolen. Schalk’s misconduct eventually came to light, and the State of Texas (plaintiff) successfully prosecuted Schalk for trade-secret theft. The relevant statute defined trade secrets as information that an owner takes measures to protect from access by anyone other than the people selected by the owner for limited purposes. Schalk appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals. Schalk contended that, at the time, he thought he had a right to make copies of his files and did not know that his former employer regarded the files as its trade secrets.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McClung, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.