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: 2001-08-09 09:45:23 PST Path: archiver1.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: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:21:19 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9kuda0$hlk$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9klokd0nif@drn.newsguy.com> <3B706ADC.B4847AC3@home.com> <9krfrl$e95$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9krlra$gk3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <1nvc7.5408$e%4.165724@news3.oke.nextra.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997374080 18100 136.170.200.133 (9 Aug 2001 16:21:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Aug 2001 16:21:20 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:11690 Date: 2001-08-09T16:21:20+00:00 List-Id: O.K. Let me deal with just this one point. I need some plug-in for Photoshop that will save me a bunch of money and plug-ins to photoshop are not my core business (Software in general isn't. Let's say I'm a graphic arts company) It makes sense for me to outsource the development of this plug-in because I don't have the expertise in house and don't want to acquire it either with regular employees or consultants to whom I've got to provide infrastructure. So your company has expertise in developing plug-ins for photoshop and you don't really think there is a market beyond me. You say you'll develop it if I pay cost-plus. I say O.K., I'll pay cost-plus, but at the end of the day there is this work product which I have totally financed. What are we going to do about ownership? I'm not a software vendor, so I don't want to try to sell it myself. However, I've paid for it much like I've paid for my plant and equipment and so on - it is an investment in assets. You propose that *you* retain ownership, perhaps to sell it elsewhere and perhaps to create a bigger user base and perhaps I gain some additional benefits from a bigger user base. However, the whole reason I paid cost-plus was because you didn't think there was much of a market out there. At this point, it gets down to an interesting negotiation. I've invested in an asset and I don't want to just give that away to someone else if it has earning potential. You've got the infrastructure to actually market it and perhaps generate those earnings. We both have something the other guy wants. Sooooo...... I propose that we have some sort of joint ownership. I finance the development because I have the capital. You go out and sell it because you have the marketing infrastructure. As the money rolls in, we split it in some manner. Or you give me revenue until it pays for the development and then keep the rest. Or we agree that if you find another buyer, you'll cut my price in half. Or any other number of possible scenarios wherein I don't simply make a gift to you of one of my assets. You say you don't like the deal and you want me to pay the full cost and you get to retain ownership? I say "fine!" and go hire myself some geeks to do it for me and keep it all for myself - forcing my competitors to spend their own money to develop the tool for themselves if they want to keep up with my competitive advantage. If the plug-in doesn't either reduce costs or increase revenue in some way, then why did I want to buy it in the first place? If it *does* contribute to the bottom line, then I don't want my competitors to get it free of charge or at a discount while I had to pay full-boat for the asset. I might agree to let my competitors buy it because I calculate that the revenue from selling it will exceed whatever loss I have in competitive advantage. But I don't *give* it away. See my point? I guess I just don't see many circumstances where a non-brain-dead businessman is going to give up an asset to another business venture without negotiating something in return. I certainly know *I* wouldn't give it up if I could make some bucks for it. That's why I'm in business - not for my health. :-) 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:1nvc7.5408$e%4.165724@news3.oke.nextra.no... > > But you _do_ get something in return - the finished product, which > would otherwise not exist; and that's what you're really interested > in, after all. The value of the software-rights might be worth next to > nothing to the buying company - they might not be in the business of > selling software. > > Also, if the development goes over budget or falls flat on the face in > some other way, _Company Y bear the costs_. You pay for the finished > product - you are not hiring consultants to do the work for you; so you > don't pay for the hours - only the final result. > > And you don't have to pay in advance either, although for large > project there would normally be some sort of incremental > payment. >