A court views intellectual property as just that property.

I have never had a customer walk in and say hey could you come over to my house and bang out some scripts for to control my theater system?

They come in and ask you how much would it be for me to hit just watch movie and have everything turn on, lights dim, shades close ect.

Customers are shopping for and buying solutions to their needs. Not the tools to provide those solutions.

If a customer walk in and asks me how much to hang a flat panel over his fireplace I don't quote him $400 and then leave my tools there in case he ever wants to throw a new TV up.

People that under value knowledge are usually the same people that lack it to begin with.

As for Julie's original gripe I would think that your question would be more suited to Crestron or AMX themselves as to why they feel proprietary programming and editing is required to program their systems. And they will probably tell you their equipment is designed and sold to be professionally installed and programmed.

And who can see this scenario unfolding. Customer Jones calls "yeah I need the programming for my crestron system. Bobby Joe from Geek squad is here to put in my new Westinghouse LCD"
you send him the code
2 days later the phone rings yeah well now nothing is working and the guy working on it says it's because of the way you initially programmed it.

This is the where the "work for hire" contribution to a collective work would possibly apply. I'm not sure what they mean by "contribution," as I've only done a cursory reading in a secondary legal source on preparing for copyright trials.

In any case, you are authoring the work at the behest of the customer. Even if you reuse code snippets, that work is considered distinct (additionally, courts have held that you can't copyright things that are general practices in the industry - which would lock others out).

I tend to think that a court would not call an AV system a collective work. Other parts of the statute talk about motion pictures or literary compilations. If that is the case and there is not a specific release of copyright in the contract, I'd say the programmer holds the copyright. Unless he's working for someone, then the copyright belongs to the employer (or if you are acting as an agent, a court could find the copyright belonged to the principal).

But again, the situation differs from purchasing an iPod. Both involve a license, but one is created at the pleasure of the customer and usually governed by a contract that specifies the work to be done. That's just my uninformed opinion, though.

Another possible avenue to consider is whether the granting of a license would entitle the customer to a back-up copy of work. And whether the customer is entitled to modify the work under license.

Who would apple be authoring the work for if not for the customer?


I dont think copyright matters here. If the programmer says his contract was to provide compiled code to make the system operational then theres no argument. If the system is running as it should the obligation has been met. The client has the compiled code, the programmer was paid for it. Who owns the compiled code is a non issue.

As far as the uncompiled code... I dont know what the court would decide IMO it could go either way without written details and a signed contract about what the line item titled 'Programming' actually means.

If there is no contract or specific details the courts would be allowed to decide what 'programming' means because its left open for interpretation.. but it would have to make it to court first. An informed client and a contract would solve the issue completely.


If the contract does not specifically define what 'programming' means, on the invoice then its worthless when the question of 'do the clients get the uncompiled code' comes up.

I compared the ipod to the crestron system thats sold as an uneditable, finished, complete, working solution. With the ipod you dont meet with anyone and your decisions are already made for you but if your shopping solutions they are the same.

On the other hand.. if your contract says your specifically paying the programmer for the uncompiled code then i agree.. it cant be compared to an ipod.


This is what im getting at. The programmer gets to decide what his Programming line item on the invoice means. If the programmer informs the client of the issue and their options and everything is put into a contract and everyone signs off on it then their is no issue.

Until that happens.. the term 'programming' as a line item in an invoice means whatever the programmer says it means or whatever the judge decides it means if it gets to court.

Lighting as a line item on an invoice? Is it the total of the lighting products? Total lighting system including sysem design installation and programming? If the contrat doesnt spell out what it means then it means whatever the author of the proposal says it means until a court says different.

I only brought up the line item issue when it was mentioned by someone else in an earlier post. I dont want it to seem like im trying to argue the term line item with you :).

Isn't there an other solution? One Julie ought to sign on for? Why cannot manufacturers use the same serial and IR code set year after year? Would it not be an amazing thing if you purchased a DVD player from your favorite company--or had one supplied as part of a custom installation--and had to replace it, would it not be great if you could replace it and have those functions already present in the code continue to work?

Isn't this in every one's best interest? Is Julie aware that Sony requires you to sign a NDA to obtain its serial protocol? Why would they require this? Why would she not assign to me the same right that she hasn't ever bothered to write about with respect to Sony?

There is also a very big difference between sharing code on a community site, such as an AMX forum or the Crestron Yahoo group, programming for a company as a programmer with authorized status and being the dealer who has the relationship with the end user. I have posted modules on the Yahoo group but I have also written modules that I have only wished to give to professionals. I recently sent a module for the newest Sony LCDs to someone in the business without charge. It was my work. I have the right to do with it what I want. If I want to post it in the download section of this site for all to use it is my right. If I wish to request that someone prove they are in the business to obtain it it is my right. If I wish to keep it to myself is that not my right?

I was on a job today as a favor to an other dealer because although authorized dealers they were not competent to diagnose and fix the problem. In order to help out they gave me all of the source code, among which were many custom modules for, among other devices, Sooloos Music System. It also held proprietary code for party mode and source selection. I doubt I'd use any of it but let's say I pull it apart and decide that with a bit of tinkering that I do use some of it. On a side note, but somewhat related, its GUI was typical of what most CI firms/coders provide where you have a page listing rooms that upon selecting one, jumps to a list of sources which upon the selection jumps to the source control page. It is a horrible GUI. My GUI is so much easier and superior to this.

While there are many programmers who could look at my code on a panel and reproduce it, more or less themselves, the fact of the matter is that most residential dealers could not. Partly this is because so many dealers use third party programmers who never show up on site.

What of the client who wants to replace his DVD player and dislikes the dealer? Buy the code. If the dealer is out of business escrow accounts are the solution.

I have been programming since 1995. This issue has only come up twice. A mega rich client for whom I was just the programmer, fired the dealer because a. she did not like that that her CD server did not provide any and all information she thought it should, and b. she did not have CAT5 wiring and the dealer agreed to install a data network that did not require UTP wires. It worked imperfectly. The other was an East Indian, and had he not been a total ass for many, many years, I would have given him the code. The only reason I did not was to help him experience Karma.

Finally, I believe QQQ is again wrong to chastise those dealers who he thinks have introduced business issues that he thinks detract from this debate. Julie is arguing for consumer rights but she clearly cares not a bit about clients who withhold final payment or demand extras for that final payment. Is this fair? It is business. So why isn't the CI who holds the code hostage also practicing business? The fact is that our legal system sucks. It is never about justice. It is never about right and wrong. It is about money. Your day in court is mega expensive and our clients typically have so much more money then we do that it is not a fair fight. I recall a buddy who had a lawyer friend send a legal note to a client. Two days later he received a response from a lawyer from Sullivan and Cromwell.

We are always on the short end. AMX or Crestron make an error. We have to figure it out and solve it uncompensated. Cable or satellite box issues? We have to solve it. Poorly manufactured equipment we mistakenly sold? We have to fix it in the field. HDMI issues? We need to solve them. Client wants to play hard ball? We get screwed. Client doesn't want to pay? We pay the price? Consumer price reductions that are paid for by lowering margins and it comes out of our pockets. New supply patterns mandate that Best Buy and Walmart will receive product 3 and 4 months before we can and Julies thinks, Great! Now Julie wants to not only plunge the knife into our bowels she wants to twist it round again and again. If we are going to speak of the consumer's rights ought we not also to speak about the CI's? Most CI firms are small. Julie's stance, framed as she has, is almost certainly going to put more and more pressure on the business remaining in business.

Alan

But they are not creating individualized code at the behest of the customer. For instance, if I hire you to write me an order processing system, then who owns the copyright on that system? Depending on the agency relationship, it could be you or me. Same situation here. I'm not arguing that once the code is loaded into the remote that it does not resemble an iPod. I'm saying that the customer could possibly be the owner of the copyright because it was done at their command.


Copyright would matter in determining ownership of the work. Again, if the court finds a particular agency relationship, the customer could be the copyright owner. I don't think it would, but that's just me talking from you know where. In fact, I think you'd have to have a very particular set of circumstances to get there. But somebody has to own the work. If you do, then you are licensing to the end-user. That has its own set of peculiarities.

Are you hiring me to provide you with an order processing system or are you hiring me to provide you with an order processing system and the code to edit/update it?

Im not sure about who holds the copyright but thats another issue IMO. The first issue is determining whether or not the end user should get the compiled code as part of the finished solution or if they should get the uncompiled code so that they can edit the programming. This has to be A.Spelled out in the contract or B.Decided in court.

Once the question of what 'programming' means as it relates to the code for a clients system.. then the question of who owns the copyright of A.the uncompiled code or B.compiled code can be debated.


I agree with this completely. But.. the "work" could mean A. the uncompiled code or B. the compiled code.

Well, let's ask again the scenarion I presented. Let's say your *company* asks me to write that code for said customer. Do you think if I said I would charge you $150/hour and it would take 50 hours, that you would pay me $7,500 for binary code? Or source code?

If the answer is source, then I am not seeing the distinction with the other party being the customer.


Well, they are not even close to making their case since they don't operate in that model. How long do you think it will take me to show the judge how the two are different? In one hand, I show a receipt for my Word purchase, in the other, an invoice showing X hours for programming?


Well, they are different alright. You charged me $50K and you gave me less than the $100 purchase! :D Seriously, if you don't see the distinction, I assure you the judge will. The two arrangements could not be more different.

I would have no idea. It would be up to you to tell me what im buying. If i dont ask, and you dont tell and theres nothing in the contract.. Who decides? My guess is court. What we expect and what we agreed upon are 2 different things.


Who the customer is... whether its the end-user or the CI firm that sub-contracted you is not an issue here. Im not arguing who the customer is when the programmer is sub contracted. Im not arguing copyright.

I am arguing that the word 'code' or 'programming' on a proposla or invoice or contract could be interpreted as the compiled code that makes the system function as promised or it could mean the uncompiled code. A contract that outlines what the word 'code' or 'programming' would answer this question.


I know your joking here but... Yes, our contract states that the (crestron) system will be 100% bullet proof. We choose rock solid products that integrate perfectly. We invest gazillions of hours reaserching User Interfaces and system operation logic so that the GUI we create is as easy to use for a 5 year old as it would be for a top level Microsoft programmer.


The judge will see that your compiled Creston programming is more expensive than your MS word receipt (compiled programming) and i can show the judge a $10,000 car and a 1,000,000 car. One costing more than the other does not prove a difference. They are both cars, they are both 'code' based products that do what they are intended.

When you provide the judge with X hours for programming of the crestron system can you also show the judge how many hours went in to the development of MS Word (including anything use in previous versions :) ?

This is a sticky issue that I have debated for many years. As a Crestron programmer who has put in the hours/days/weeks to become certified, I feel that what I write is something special. I take pride in the code I produce and dont really want to share that with my competition. Thats an emotional response and in my early years as a programmer I would put up a fight to not provide what I deemed as intellectual property. I guess I grew out of this mentality becasue I now just provide the code upon request, if the customers account is paid in full. I see it this way, if a customer is so pissed at me or the company I work for/with then I dont want to deal with them anyway. The relationship has broken and the cost to repair it could easily outweigh the price of purchase for source code. I provide the touchpanel files as well as the source program files in non-compiled form. I do not, will not, never have provided my raw graphics files. The source touchpanel files will contain the image files, primarily in .png or .bmp format, so that if a new source needs to be added then the new programmer can copy/paste buttons to create something similar to what is already loaded on the panel. I see this as fair to me and to the customer. The custom modules I have written are provided in a LOCKED state. We control system programmers all use the same IDE but we dont all share the same skillset. Locking a module is the best option we have for hiding our uber top secret assembly of logic blocks that we call code. It gives us warm and fuzzy bunny feelings and thats okay. Its the same thing as putting a login password on a PC, it makes you feel good and generally keeps people from prying into your work. Thats my $.02 on giving away code.

A lot of guys want to compare Microsoft and control system code. Nowhere near the same guys, sorry. When M$ sells someone a copy of Word 2007, what are they really buying? They are buying a licensed executable that will install the compiled files on their machine and then allow them to make many .doc files. They dont NEED the source code to make the copy of Word work and there is no way they would be given a copy of the source code from M$. They can make changes to their already created .doc files without having to call in a MCSE.

Crestron/AMX give us the IDE tools and the operating systems without charge and we in turn charge the customer for our time/labor to program the system. We are compensated for our time and can even charge additional labor for customized solutions. Give the code to them. If your relationship is strong with the client they will call you for changes. If your relationship has failed, and they are paid in full for services rendered, then give them the code. Should you find yourself going out of business then do the right thing and email your clients a copy of the code or at least a link to a place they can download it. I do not think a client has rights to the code if the project is complete but payment is not. I believe that Julie would agree that if it is unfair for an integrator to hold a consumer hostage that it is also unfair for the consumer to hold an integrator hostage. I believe her article will be fair and balanced but I would also like to see her write an article titled "Pay your bill" and chastise the consumers for NOT making final payment on the contract. This happens more often than control system code being held hostage. It may very well cost $50k for a consumer to get an elaborate control system reprogrammed. That is one consumer who will feel the hurt in the wallet for a while. Consumers who refuses to make final payment of $10k, $20k or more are far more common and can put employees out of work, bankrupt integrators and ultimately steal from the people they have chosen to do business with. You tell me which one of those scenarios is worse?

Why isnt it the same? Both are code based products that are meant to preform a function.

Words function is to allow you to create and edit documents. Compiled Crestron code allows you to control the integrated electronics in your home.

Word being able to create and edit doc files can be compared to someone being able to edit play lists on Kaleidescape or someone changing channels while watching TV. Word never changes just like the control system's compiled code never changes.

Crestron owners dont have to call in a CAIP to change the presets on their tuner or the level of the lights in the kitchen. Changing the .doc file does not alter Word in any way.

I feel that the one large difference in your comparison is that should the Word user decide/need to make an hardware upgrade, say a video card, it will not require that Word as a program be altered at the source code level, recompiled and reloaded on the users PC to continue to function. Should a Crestron/AMX owner need to change/upgrade a device in the system that cannot be controlled with existing compiled code it DOES require a change at the source code level by someone trained in the programming language of the control system in question. Disregarding the known exceptions of OS incompatibilities, Word would in theory work on any computer that it is installed on as it is written as a general use utility. The same cannot be said for control system code. Sure, I can load code written for a PRO2 onto a QM-RMC or CP2E for testing purposes but it would not work in a production environment. Control systems and computers are not the same thing and cant/shouldnt really be compared as such. (I am torn on whether systems like Lifeware should be compared since they do reside on a PC).

Yes, you could have a processor fail and assuming nothing else has changed in system then reloading compiled code gets the system up and running again. Yes, a Word user could have a hard drive failure or decide/need to format and after doing so they could reload Word. Whats the difference in this scenario? There is no special software tools needed to re-install Word. The same cannot be said for control system compiled files. That is a distinct difference between the two types of compiled code. On another level, a program like Word are written with a general purpose in mind. Control system programs are very specific in their purpose. Most companies that contract programmers to write a very specific and specialized program require that they retain all rights and IP for the written code. I spent some time a few years back researching my 'rights' to my IP and nothing I found concerning software creation would apply to control system code. The legal community doesnt seem to have encountered enough lawsuits to warrant any legislation to protect control system code as IP.


There are laws concerning computer software and the licensing thereof. We dont purchase Windows or a MacOS, we buy a license to use that software. That software comes with a EULA that you must accept before you can use the software. Generally there is an activation key needed to unlock the software. These things could be created for the control system environment but most programmers dont go that far as it would eat memory resources that are all too valuable. I wonder if stating in your contract that the customer is simply purchasing a license to use the code would hold up in court if there is no EULA? They have purchased a license without a real legally binding EULA. Doubt that the courts would side in the favor of the integrator. I really dont see the point in spending all the time, energy and money to try and 'protect' control system code. Like I said before, if the customer wants it because they want to use someone else then give it up and let them move along. In the end its going to be better for you, better for the end user and lessen the negative impact on our industry.

But surely locking the module only prevents another programmer from dissecting it to see how it was built, it does not stop them from re-using the module in their own programs?

Surely a programmer that was not good enough to write the module in the first place would just use your locked one and not worry about how it was constructed, i.e. you have still given away what could be your competitive edge...?

If you change the hardware configuration of the crestron system you have a new system on your hands. One that requires you to update or replace the original programming. Your asking the existing program to do something new. It would be like asking MS WORD to play back MP3's which would require MS WORD to be updated or replaced.




Word cant be installed on a cell phone. Why would someone expect a compiled crestron program to be installed on a different peice of hardware?


Theres no special software tools to install a compiled crestron program. An ethernet cable will do. Word does exactly and only what its supposed to do. A compiled crestron program does exactly and only what its supposed to do.


I dont have a comment about this. Im not arguing against of for this. If a contract says the end user owns the code then all the opinions in the world wont matter.


Im not arguing who would win in court or what the rules are.. Just that... without a contract.. it could go either way in court because compiled code could be considered the 'programming' that the client purchased vs. the uncompiled code.

MS word is mearly a module within my computer that allows me to do those functions.
I buy many other programs to allow me to do many other things.
It's the OS that should be compared, and there you cannot.
In a Crestron system, what many here are saying is that for me to add more modules (software to run new products) to my control system I have to come to the person that did the initial program. With MS OS I can go to any dealer and add more functions to my computer.
If you prefer the MS word reference, MS may release a new version of word that allows me to do new things that I would like to add to my system, all I have to do is go out and buy the upgrade package, once again from any dealer, and I am on my way. You cannot do that with Crestron. So again I say these are not the same.

The OS or a program.. it does not matter. Word, whatever its features or limitations.. was planned, and produced to serve a specific purpose just like a crestron system.


Anyone saying you have to go to the initial programmer to change the original programming is wrong. Im not sure i read that anywhere in this thread. Any crestron programmer 'should' be able to open the uncompiled code and make changes to it for you.

The uncompiled code loaded on the processor cant be edited by anyone (as far as i know). This does not mean your locked into staying with the same creston programmer forever. If... You get a copy of the uncompiled code. Thats what the thread is discussing.

With Microsoft Windows you can add as many programs as you want but they do not change what windows does. Microsoft does not intend on you being able to edit Windows just like crestron and its programmers do not intend on you editing the compiled code that resides on the processor.

However.. if you do add software to your computer.. your paying for it. Just like you would pay to add a cd player to your crestron system.


Your buying the new version of Word just like you would buy the services of a programmer to add programming to your crestron system.

You CAN use any crestron programmer you want IF you spell out in the contract that you are to receive the uncompiled code once the installation is finished. And you CAN always pay for brand new programming.. Just like you would when you decide to buy a new/changed version of MS Word.

If anything.. Crestron is more fair than microsoft because A. You can have access to the uncompiled code and B. You can take that uncompiled code to any Crestron dealer to get it changed for you. With microsoft.. they are the only ones who can change word to include new features and you dont get to decide what they are.