Why is he obligated to implement a solution? The IP is the idea, not the implementation of it.
I'm not familiar with the case, but others are saying that it was the terms of a settlement, not the court ruling.
If it's legally correct, then the law is so flawed.
A judge can compel someone to work without pay? Is that not slavery?
There's an exception to the US Constitution's abolition of slavery: punishment for a crime. Fortunately, contract disputes are civil rather than criminal.