technicality of ownership and rights

[firehawk]

well not quite as I was there. but because they only just got the first set of change requests, they need to make it otherwise their end client will be really pissed and would not pay any monthly charges that are billed to them.

so they do need it for sure. we will see how it goes.

[mudskipper]

I think you're 'aving a larf. Code you build in time paid for by them = their code. If you sell them a finished product you built in your own time then that's another story.

[firehawk]

sure but technically i used my own equipment, software etc... and ive been the one to manage it all but now because I am not there, and there was no contract to say that they own the files - I still have the upper hand here since I designed the entire thing. Even the solicitor says this.

ownership lays with the author unless otherwise stated.

[doodab]

I think you're 'aving a larf. Code you build in time paid for by them = their code. If you sell them a finished product you built in your own time then that's another story.

Only if you are employed or the contract says so. That's why all standard contracts have clauses to cover the transfer of IP & copyright.

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a bit cheeky, so you also need to think about potential damage to your reputation. If future clients find out about this they are likely to be wary of you.

There is no point pricing things so high that they don't bite. What is the value to them of what you have? At most, it's the cost of getting it done again + any lost revenue. Knock a bit (quite possibly a lot) off to allow for the fact they probably want to tell you where to stick it and you have a ballpark figure for what they might be prepared to pay.

[Sysman]

ownership lays with the author unless otherwise stated.

That was made abundantly clear to me on my very first contract. The client explained to me that if they didn't put a clause claiming ownership of the software for themselves into the contract, I could by default end up being the owner of any software I wrote for them.

[firehawk]

exactly my friend. this is the whole debate on this thread

obviously if there was a contract and they put it in the clause that they own the software that I develop, then sure its a different matter altogether. but the matter of the fact is there was no contract and also there was no verbal agreement anyway that they own the files/software i develop

[firehawk]

well the partner/associate said that they "didnt realise it was going to be that much" and she doesnt have authority to approve it until the MD comes back into the office.

I guess if the price was lower then it would all be ok.... but hey, I can charge whatever I like.

[doodab]

exactly my friend. this is the whole debate on this thread

obviously if there was a contract and they put it in the clause that they own the software that I develop, then sure its a different matter altogether. but the matter of the fact is there was no contract and also there was no verbal agreement anyway that they own the files/software i develop

Actually, there is a contract. It's an implied contract. As there is no written contract specifically excluding transfer of ownership, it would ultimately be down to a court to decide whether transfer of ownership was an implied term of the implied contract, which they might do because it's customary to have such a transfer in contracts to develop software.

IANAL BTW.

[firehawk]

well there isnt in this case (I know you are trying to defend them...for whatever reason). I have asked the solicitor and they said the same thing otherwise I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Plus, why then write in contracts that any code developed by the employee is owned by the company? if it were "implied" then they wouldnt be writing it in the first place.

at the end of the day, business is business and they were unfair to me, and offensive so...thats the price one has to pay.

I specifically requested a written contract many times -they said they would do it, they had ample time and they never did it.

[Sysman]

Actually, there is a contract. It's an implied contract. As there is no written contract specifically excluding transfer of ownership, it would ultimately be down to a court to decide whether transfer of ownership was an implied term of the implied contract, which they might do because it's customary to have such a transfer in contracts to develop software.

IANAL BTW.

The "by default" bit I was talking about was what clientco's lawyers had advised. They made it pretty clear cut to me, to the extent I've always looked for an ownership clause in subsequent contracts.