This is a prime example of the misinformation that has passed for fact in this thread. It may be logical but it is nonetheless inaccurate. The customer rarely, if ever, pays the real costs of programming or labor to complete the job. These costs are subsidized by other parts of the job.

A typical job is composed of equipment, labor and material, perhaps engineering, design and project management. In the old days when equipment could be sold for a profit it subsidized the other costs. Often a proposal is negotiated and prices adjusted. The bottom line is the bottom line and it didn't matter if you lost money in one line item so long as you made money on the job.

Perhaps in your world the cost of doing business is accurately reflected in all aspects of the business, from janitorial services through R&D on through manufacturing. It is not so in mine. We eat labor as the cost of doing business but labor in no way reflects the actual cost of what it takes to successfully complete a job. The client never pays the real cost of labor, which includes programming, in any job I've ever been involved.

The client rarely pays once, let alone twice for programming. He pays to have his job completed. The entire price of the job pays for its constituent parts, from equipment failures, installation, programming, testing and trouble shooting, project management, and such. You tend to lose your shirt on labor, as a function of its line item but you hope that the job as a whole will make up for it. I have long thought that firms survive only as a ponzi scheme as new jobs pay to complete current jobs. Once those new jobs dry up....................

The client almost never pays for the labor it takes to complete the job, let alone its programming. He does not pay once let alone twice for the same system. The only time he pays anything remotely approaching the real cost is the second time and, yes, he will scream at having to pay the unsubsidized price for the labor required to program his system. Your point may seem both rational and logical but it is still nonsense as it in no way reflects the reality. Worse, few firms track these factors with sufficient accuracy to even determine if they are profitable. Does a lie become true if you repeat it often enough? You and Julie continue to repeat half-truths and inaccuracies and gloss them in a rational framework that makes it appear real and valid.

You may argue that my argument has changed. I still believe that the code I write is intellectual property but it like arguing politics or religion and so after a simple declarative statement there is little reason to repeat it. The assumptions behind this thread are flawed and worse a small minority of cases are being used as justification to do great harm. Even the side show about software licenses does not in any way reflect what happens in the sales process. Clients are overwhelmed and somewhat fearful to begin with. Although it has changed a bit these past 3 years, there is still a great deal of ignorance and fear about a true custom automation system. Inaccurate statements such as the one I have quoted that you made or the ones Julie thinks are protecting her theoretical client will merely stoke fear rather then educate the public.

Alan