From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 08:39:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:28:40 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9krlra$gk3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9klokd0nif@drn.newsguy.com> <3B706ADC.B4847AC3@home.com> <9krfrl$e95$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997284522 17027 136.170.200.133 (8 Aug 2001 15:28:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2001 15:28:42 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11621 Date: 2001-08-08T15:28:42+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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