Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

There are always unusual situations, so maybe I can't say "always" or
"never", but I doubt you will find many examples where someone pays
cost-plus and doesn't retain ownership - or some other highly exclusive
arrangement at least. I know of one situation where Company X paid Company Y
to develop a product and Company Y retained ownership with Company X having
few rights. (Names changed to protect the stupid! :-) However, I don't think
Company Y has yet found a customer for the product outside of Company X, so
ownership may be a moot point. (Besides, Company X was known to be
brain-dead)

Your second case is presuming that I have some specialized knowledge or
capability that you lack and hence I can charge you whatever I like and
you'll just accept it because you have no choice. Those situations would
again be extremely rare.

Why would Company X pay Company Y the full cost of development *plus profit*
to build them something unless they are going to in the end own it? Why not
just hire the staff to do the job, keep the product to yourself and retain
the profit margin that Company Y would make? I can imagine why I'd hire
Company Y - maybe I don't have the skills in house - and I could imagine
cases where it is in my interest to let Company Y have some rights to the
product, but why would I give up something I don't have to and get nothing
in exchange?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Leif Roar Moldskred" <lrm@huldreheim.provida.no> wrote in message
news:WZbc7.5072$e%4.154183@news3.oke.nextra.no...
>
> Actually, there might be good business-sense in doing just that in a
> few cases. If the library is outside of the paying company's focus, it
> might be better for the company to leave the ownership of the library
> in the hands of the creators, and let them continue to develop and
> support it; rather than demanding the rights for themselves, and then
> never having the time or inclination to do anything more with the
> library.
>
> A second reason is even simpler: if nobody will write the library
> unless you pay them the development cost, and lets them retain the
> rights. For more specialized problem domains, it might be seller's
> market.
>
> --
> Leif Roar Moldskred