3 ms·

I think when you say "use of their software" you run into issues that need to be better defined. If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finish

by oblib 7y ago

I think when you say "use of their software" you run into issues that need to be better defined. If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finished product is not yours. It belongs to the person or company that paid you to make it. I used to build custom cars. No one ever paid me to build a car for me, or paid me when they drove the car I built for them. I can't imagine why building software for someone should be any different. I could have built a car and offered to rent it to others, and in essence that is what building a web app and offering it as a subscription service is, and I do that now, and so can you.

thunkshift1 7y ago
How to identify which piece of software to choose for royalty -> Software IP definition is a contentious and thorny issue. This is something that does need to be better defined and I agree with that part. However the car analogy is not correct. 'If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finished product is not yours. It belongs to the person or company that paid you to make it.' -> Yes, ownership lies with the employer. I am not talking about engineers "owning" the entire finished product, or even important components within within them; but that their efforts in developing these core parts should be acknowledged in terms of royalty payments other than salary (depending on usage of those components). Also note that I am talking about royalties for teams, not individuals. 'I can't imagine why building software for someone should be any different.' -> It depends on what kind of software you are building. if your team does build a software that makes a ton of money for your company, why shouldn't it be made part of those proceeds as well? In fields like hardware design which relies on IP based models, this way of compensation does exist (the EE times article). This is true for life-sciences too. In fact some EU countries also have laws for it.

by oblib 7y ago

thunkshift1 7y ago

How to identify which piece of software to choose for royalty -> Software IP definition is a contentious and thorny issue. This is something that does need to be better defined and I agree with that part. However the car analogy is not correct. 'If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finished product is not yours. It belongs to the person or company that paid you to make it.' -> Yes, ownership lies with the employer. I am not talking about engineers "owning" the entire finished product, or even important components within within them; but that their efforts in developing these core parts should be acknowledged in terms of royalty payments other than salary (depending on usage of those components). Also note that I am talking about royalties for teams, not individuals. 'I can't imagine why building software for someone should be any different.' -> It depends on what kind of software you are building. if your team does build a software that makes a ton of money for your company, why shouldn't it be made part of those proceeds as well? In fields like hardware design which relies on IP based models, this way of compensation does exist (the EE times article). This is true for life-sciences too. In fact some EU countries also have laws for it.