Who Owns the Code? Two Integrators Debate

I wish the folks at Philips would read this article and take notice. How insane is it that you cannot recover a file from a Pronto? They say it is to protect the installer??? The installer; what about the client that paid in excess of $1000 for a control system and now they have to start from scratch because the original integrator is out of the picture and they want changes make to the controller. That does not make any sense and I avoid selling Pronto’s in part because of this very issue. When I program a remote I make sure I am compensated for my work product. The more glitzy the programming the more I charge. My benefit is can reuse the code; not that I can hold a client hostage for a GUI I am proud to have created. And every client I tell we have to start from scratch is amazed and disappointed. Most stating had they known this, they would not have purchased the remote in the first place

I still find it odd that so many integrators use the “intellectual property” defense as to holding on to the code.  Over the last year, so many CE companies are readily offering the code and advertising this fact.

Are the ones who aren’t so arrogant that they claim “their” code is so much better than the guys who are offering it?

After a ton of effort I finally did get my code.  I have moved forward with another company and it cost me plenty of money for the new firm to move forward with my existing code.  Not as much as to reprogram everything, but certainly more than if Baumeister never went out of business.  Granted I did more than just swap a player but there is a learning curve with code.

Customers aren’t going to auction precious code to new installers.  If they have a good experience and a CD of their source code, they will continue to come back to the firm they started with.

Also remember, a sneaky programmer with A+ stolen code isn’t going to automatically going to become a top level programmer.  They are going to fail miserably at supporting and changing the code to the point where they certainly won’t be your competitor.

And good programmers (legitimate competitors) won’t want your code as they would prefer to create something that they are familiar with.

So give the customer what they deserve, pop the CD in the mail.  And don’t forget, code isn’t the only issue.  Provide customers with CAD documents, design documentation, and everything else they did PAY for when they hired your company.

I understand the frustration people have. I agree that the code should be the dealers to keep hold of no matter what. I mean it makes all the sense in the world. But onto another topic now.

I just got back from the doctor and he wants me to go for a cardiogram to check my heart. I told him that I just had one done 6 months ago before I moved. He understood but felt more comfortable having a new one. He did ask if I could get him the old test results so I sad “sure”.

I called my old doctor and they told me I DIDN’T PAY FOR THE TEST RESULTS SEPARATELY from the test and analysis by the doctor. They said the software that the GE machine uses is only provided for them to use, their trained over paid technicians ran the test and that if I wanted those results I’d have to pay a license fee.

ARE THESE DOCTORS CRAZY??!!! Oh wait a minute they DIDN’T DO that. They aren’t that delusional. People think they are raping the world and their costs are insane. But the funny/sad thing is the doctor will GIVE me the test results, program file if applicable BUT the AV industry thinks its alright not to provide the software code included up front or at least as a line item on the quote for the owner to decide.

How pathetic is this?!?!

For the record, i still stand by what i have said since this debate began months ago.. No one can tell the integrator what he has sold the client. Meaning that if my contract says i own the code… i own it. But after reading all the different points of view i realize that the issue that needs to be addressed is customer awareness. Its very easy to get defensive and feel cheated when someone demands code that you didn’t bill for. But its no ones fault but your own if you sold a Crestron system and didn’t bill for something as important as the code.

I think its pretty obvious that the right thing to do is to #1.Inform your client of the code issue and #2.Make sure they get copies when the project is completed and the invoice is paid.

Most of your clients don’t know anything about code, most don’t realize that your GUI is something you created. They don’t realize that every command in that system was wired up by someone in software and that your expertise makes their system better than the guy next door. As far as they know its a remote control and all you did was plug it up. So its pretty obvious they have no clue what it costs to generate or why/if it has value to anyone but them.

The CI/programmer’s job is to make the client aware of this issue. Just like they make the client aware of which speakers sound best and why they should choose one over the other. You are your clients technology consultant and that makes you responsible for getting them all the facts about everything in their system.

In JoeAV’s example he talked about test results. The doctor has no problem passing the results a long because the doctor billed correctly for those results and turned profit. If the CI/programmer bills correctly for the code they should have no problem parting with it.

If your a CI/Programmer and your cutting price on your programming to stay under budget or win a bid.. that’s your prerogative and problem. Your choosing to do that and its not a reason or even a very good excuse for then claiming that the code belongs to you not the client.

I agree 39cent. As long as you provide a clear line item cost for the software license ownership then you’ve done all you need. If the owner refuses, he was presented. If the owner shops your quote to compare then that is competition. If you don’t present the facts for the client to choose then your only hurting everybody else in this industry. That isn’t to difficult in my opinion.

Regardless of what your position is on this matter, if your company is going out of business, you should absolutely positively give all of your clients their source code on a CD. And it wouldn’t hurt to include a copy of the proposal, schematics, and CAD prints if you have them.

They are no longer any good to you, so why not do the right thing on your way out the door and save your clients the future headaches while also preserving good will between consumers and our industry?

jbrown, i agree with your post completely. The going out of business guys were either trying to figure out a way to make money or just didn’t want to bother since the ship was sinking anyway. It sucks but there are people out there who have no integrity.

Who owns the code will soon become a non issue due to the CEPro articles, the many forum threads bringing awareness to the public but more importantly to the CI/programmers. When everyone of their peers steps up they will have to or become the odd man out who gets avoided by savvy clients.

If i had a bunch of system files sitting on my server right now for projects i have done over the last however many years.. I wouldn’t be getting ready for a fight. I would be putting together a cute little package for the client with all of our latest offerings and clippings about new technology available to them and a really thoughtful letter about how important they are to me a long with a copy of every file and document i have for their system. You will get your name back in the front of their mind and you wont ever have to worry about leaving someone stranded.

Former B client, please contact me. Interested in consumer perspective. jjacobson at comcast dot net. thx

I side with giving the code..it just seems like the right thing to do.however…

Photographers regularly license 1 single use of a photo..use it for literature..but not an ad without additional cash.

Control System programming is just an arrangement of known items..but so is a piece of music..12 notes in a pattern..very similar to code. This is protected..although poorly enforced these days. You couldn’t pay for a song and turn it into a movie score.

Messy..but those who try to keep the code will lose…openness is winning out.

A software escrow solution is perfect for this type of problem, the source code is held securely and only released to the client should a critical event occur to the vendor/integrator.  Software escrow does not cost upwards of $10,000 as Alan suggests we provide a very robust solution that would fit this scenario perfectly for $500 per user/client with no fee to establish the account.

Hello Dave,

Before I wrote my side of the article I investigated software escrow agreements and determined they are not viable for our industry due to cost, and compliance.  For instance, without very expensive compliance measures in place, there’s absolutely no way to even be sure that the latest files are being kept in the escrow account!  On top of that most escrow agreements aren’t even meant to address/solve the issue of client/vendor disagreements, those still need to be addressed in a court of law.  That is, escrow companies to do not want to be arbiters, rather there needs to be a specific trigger to cause the code to be released.  If we assume that the trigger agreed to is the Client wanting to use a different integrator, than escrow accomplishes nothing for the integrator who does not want to release the code in the first place.

I’m also going to guess that the fee that you quote is annual.  Even my Clients installing 6 figure systems don’t want to pay $500 a year just so someone will hold the code for their home automation system.

Having said that, I’m always open to learning about new things, and perhaps your company offers different services than the ones I spoke to.  Please send me a PM if you’d like to provide more information.

BTW, if you join the CE Pro forums, you can then search on my user name there and send me a PM.

Posted by electronicintegration on 08/11 at 10:54 PM

I side with giving the code..it just seems like the right thing to do.however…

Photographers regularly license 1 single use of a photo..use it for literature..but not an ad without additional cash.”

That is precisely what I suggested in the article (or close to that).  Simply license the code to the Client for use on their system.  This fully protects the Client, and gives them ownership of the code for *their* system (only), and offers the integrator legal recourse if they were to discover another integrator reusing the code on other systems.

This entire argument is rather strange.
On the one side is the hurt that “could” happen to the integrator if a competitor discovered some advanced programming technique from examination of their code.

On the other side is the obvious hurt and damage to many customers when they do not have the code.
As an IT person I am highly aware of this issue, and that is why I want to share my thoughts.

The hurt of the integrator is based on the emotional pride of developing a better way to accomplish a task in programming, and not on real economic damage to his business by a competitor discovering the code
The amount of financial damage is filtered by the following points.
1. The competitor will have to be called in to take over the job.
2. The competitor has to read, and understand the source code
3. The competitor has to decide to copy/steal the method of the source code.
4. The competitor has to decide to use the source code in a different job.
5. The competitors final job / performance has to be far superior, because of the inclusion of this stolen software, to make the customer believe he has received a better system then he would have gotten without the stolen software.
6. The customer has to be willing to tell new customers that the improvements caused by the stolen software are enough that the new customer will decide to use the competitor.

Only in this one case, with all 6 conditions fulfilled will the sofware writer suffer any damage.

A bad system and many bad parts with stolen software will not be improved enough by the stolen software to offset these.  A good system with many good parts will be installed by a good, honest, hardworking competitor.  If that competitor installs a good system, they will most likely have a good software system to go with it, and the question becomes moot again.

In truth, what are the chances that a competitor will have a great hardware system, but such bad software that your stolen software will improve his system enough that he will truly hurt you in the next job you bid against him for?

I submit that the percentage of damage you sustain from competitors theft, after taking into account the lesser quality of their work, hardware, other software, innate dishonesty in business dealings, bad business ethics, chance of discovery when you are called in to trouble shoot their work, will be effectively 0%. 

In reality, it is your love and pride in your software that makes you so determined to hold on to it and protect it, not your fear that it will be stolen.

How many programmers work in the “open source” community and give away their work for nothing? Don’t you think that improvements in their programming both by their peers, and even critics make them develop better programming?  If 3-4 programmers work on a project in tandem, the total improvements are even greater.

The point is the improvements in the programmers work ability, knowledge, network of people to help resolve issues, shareing of the load to develop superior program modules will always win out… over the programs of someone that is so protective of their work that they are unwilling to let anyone else see it.

This is why I believe this debate is between a mountain, and a grain of sand.  The people that are choosing the sand do it because they are emotionally invested in the success of the grain of sand.. because it it “their” grain of sand.  The people that choose the mountain can ascend to the heights and they will always win out in the long run.

Calvin E. Thomas

Calvin,

following up on the “open source” comment. I come from the OSS IT background and now have taken an interest in the installers business.

This is an interesting debate but also the sign of a sick business relationship.  A business that abuses its customers is a business that is prone to be quickly replaced.

As an end-user shopping for a high end system I was taken aback by the fact that stuff was expensive wasn’t that great and I was treated like a dumb rich schmuck to be taken advantage of by most of the professionals.

I took a closer look to try to understand why the cost structure was so skewed and realized that the problem was 1/ the proprietary nature of the business models of vendors 2/ installing things in the field is still a bit of a complex black art.  The final strack that broke the proverbial camel’s back for me was this discussion about who owns the source code. As an outsider it was disturbing.  Also let’s face it, what most installers claim is “intellectual property” is just fancy configuration files.  Configuration doesn’t qualify as innovation and there is very little “programming” that really needs to take place in domotics. 

To advance state of the art you may want to take a look at Open Remote.  http://www.openremote.org. I am a founding member of that open source domotics community.  There are various aims
1/ an open source runtime.  To host the various components of the controller we build an open source container.  Plug-ins can be proprietary.  The “source code” is usually hacks to open sockets to the target and speak their native language.  50 lines of code do not need to be reinvented over an d over again.  This way we support many targets (X10, Lutron, KNX, IR, UPnP etc)
2/ online configuration. This tool, called composer, is still under development but basically it is a series of online tools.  The result is a configuration associated with a profile ONLINE.  It is therefore automatically the property of the user and by standardizing tools we promote portability.  A new installer can come in and with minimal work take over a job. 
3/ Open interfaces.  We support the iPhone and iPod Touch.  We support Android and web based.  This way you can deploy high end looking control panels that interoperate with any backend. 

Thoughts and your input are more than welcome on the forums.  It is clear that a new breed of installers will emerge from this current morrass the industry is in.  Listening to what customers want, not abusing their ignorance and building a relationship based on trust and a job well done as opposed to coercion are better ways to build an ecosystem. 

My 2c