I once did an installation for someone I'll call the "thief." I was contacted by his IT who I will call the "enabler." I installed and programmed a working system. Indeed the basic system I signed on to install wound up being anything but basic once he got though changing it because "it was a Crestron system." There was no programming line item since it was supposed to be a "basic" system. Why don't you write about his not paying any of the installation labor despite getting a working system?

Why is this considered the price of doing business but the other is not? I have given so many examples in this thread of the hazards we installers/programmers face. We control very little but we assume responsibility for providing a working system. Cable box firmware changes? Tough. Make it work. HDMI port doesn't work? Tough make it work? Manufacturer screw ups? Tough make it work? Other trades screw up? Tough make it work. Client doesn't want to pay? Tough. You cannot sue for 10K unless you wish to pay 30-50K in legal fees.

Have the software placed in escrow. Client picks up the fees for this. If the business goes under the client gets the software. If he "dislikes" the firm he purchases the code from the dealer.

Here we have a solution and the problem ceases to be an issue. Neither client or dealer is screwed--though you can bet any cool macros will find its way into the public domain, irrespective of any contractual limitations to the contrary. Shall we not make an attempt to protect the dealer while trying to save your innocent "friend" from evil? Might it not also be the case that your friend was also a dirt bag, who did not pay his bill, insisted on more and more extras and that when the dealer finally called time, he cried foul? Yet you'd argue that he deserved the code so that he could go on to screw the next dealer. I'd happily name names but I'd wind up in court where truth in no defense. Any one recall Liberace suing because some journalist had the audacity to call him a homosexual?

Alan