The solution to this problem is escrow accounts where the client pays for his software being stored.

If a client actually payed for the real time it took to code his system I'd be far less argumentative on the subject. The fact is that programming is subsidized out of other line items. If their real price of the programming was 30K but the client has a line items, not in hours, but as a lump sum, of 12K then how can our legal mind suggest the code is owned by the client?

I have written code that works and had it fail to work due to manufacturer's firmware upgrades. I have had to fix that code. Who pays? Certainly not the client. He sees it as my cost of doing business. I have recently had a problem where the correct written code did not work due to an error on the manufacturer's part. They admitted the error ( does me little good in terms of wasted time trouble shooting ) but also wrote for me a work around. Honest and honorable manufacturer. But who pays for the lost time it took to get code that made that system work?

Let us admit honestly that most all of us work upon a paradigm that is no longer functional. Labor, including all time to install and program a project, has long been subsidized by equipment profits. But as margins string to nil, this paradigm no longer works. No client will YET pay hourly for these services. Plumbers get to charge hourly but we must present a fixed price.

Moreover, many models foolishly permit the client to determine when the coder is finished. If you are unlucky enough to be imprisoned by such a client you may find yourself having to modify code for which they will later decline to pay ( It was part of the job, they will argue ), alter GUI code, change fonts, text, and move buttons 1/100 of an inch. You will be told that macros we all use need to be "fixed" to provide more or different features--again without pay because "you took the job to provide me with this system."

I do agree that some sunlight needs to be lit upon this. But the fact is that there are far more unscrupulous clients then unscrupulous dealers. A dealer who goes out of business or a small dealer who dies are occurrences that happen but it is rare. More common, is the client who uses his financial clout to coerce services from the dealer that are not the responsibility of the dealer. Cable boxes that don't work become our responsibility even though we don't supply them or have any control over their operation. We need to be on site when mill work is installed to ensure that wires are pulled to where they need to be. We put lightning systems on line before the real fixtures are installed and when they are later installed we are told we have to warranty the system. When does it stop? When the client agrees his job is finished. A client pays for a job. When the equipment is installed and functioning to his satisfaction he pays, in theory. We all know that the final 10 per cent can be impossible to collect.

Does it not follow that a client is paying for a working system at the time of that system's installation?

The two solutions to this issue have been suggested. Place the source code in escrow accounts with the client responsible for any and all fees to store the code.
Have the client pay for the code. 7500 for the code that took 100's of hours to write for clients with net worth exceeding the GNP of some city governments is hardly exorbitant.

How about educating clients, Julie, into how much time and effort goes into a job Julie? As the legal eagle above demonstrates, most of us don't stand a chance because law is not about what is right but about who has the might. In every case the mighty are those who have the money. Instead of stoking the fears of clients about situations that happen so infrequently why not educate the public into the real costs of the software operating their system?

Alan