Yes, as I said before, that can be easily addressed by identifying which IP is prior and which IP is owned by the customer. But to design a product for the customer and then want to license it to the customer for a fee is a bit absurd even if it contains your "core-technology tricks". I can't imagine anyone being so desperate to agree to that, but I don't know anything about this design.
I think the only reasonable restriction John could hope for is to retain the right to continue using the IP he developed previously. But if the customer doesn't mind giving away the IP developed under contract to them, so be it. If it isn't patented then some other outfit can figure out the same stuff I'm sure.
I have a running production of a board that can only be used by my customer in his equipment. They paid me to design the board and the FPGA IP including some signal processing I had worked out previously. But they want a board, not an argument. I sell them the board but if they decide I am a problem at any time they can take it over and make it themselves. As far as I am concerned they own the Gerbers, BOM, schematic, HDL source and bit file. But I own the test fixtures and all the production "IP" which means they would have to ramp up a way to make and test these boards. So they are not inclined to cut me out even if they have that right.
If I had told them up front that this board would be my design which I would license to them I'm sure they would have never paid me to design it. I can't picture anyone agreeing to that.
Does "locked in" mean a patent? That is the only way I know of that they can prevent you from designing in their idea. Trade secrets only stop you from copying their work.
Yes, the non-exclusive license thing sounds very good. Sometimes that does not satisfy the customer though and I have to give them an exclusive license to the IP they have paid for. Heck, once I had a customer upset because I put my logo and copyright on the PCB and source code. But that lasted all of 5 minutes since the board is very small and the logo is nearly microscopic. lol
You have it backwards. In government contracting nearly any legit expenses you can think of are covered by overhead and G&A. Then you mark up the total by 10%. I think IRAD is separate, but often funded by the government anyway and anything related to the project is not IRAD. In fact you get in big trouble by mixing the two.
Another reason for the auditing is to keep you from loading the profit on one or the other of the development and manufacturing. You could load up the profit on the development and then walk away from the manufacturing. It used to be common in government work to low ball the development knowing you were the best candidate for the production and make the profits on that and the inevitable change orders... so audit try to keep things in line.
I used to work for a government contractor who was *very* high tech. In fact their entire existence was due to their technology which blew the big boys out of the water. They had to work under the exact same FAR as everyone else. Like the big boys, the overhead ended up being some 300% if I remember right. Hard to lose money in that climate.
No, dummy, the "freebies" are paid out of profit. If they didn't return their costs, plus profit, they wouldn't exist. UI is a tax. It is not a choice, so gets passed *directly* to the consumer (plus administration, plus profit).
That's just the indirect cost. The employment tax doesn't even begin to cover the direct costs. That kitty has been empty for a decade. There is no way 99 weeks coverage was planned, or is even thought of when the insurance rates were set.
Good grief, read! It was changed so people wouldn't retire early,
Because his job is to GET A JOB, not to shovel shit. That's the whole point of UI. It's not supposed to be a subsidy for employers.
It's a fact. I know you lefties are allergic to facts, but that doesn't change them.
It was. It isn't. That bank is broke.
Until then. Isn't now. The cupboard is bare. Has been for a decade. Obama's doing nothing to help it.
Wrong. You're totally clueless about the free market.
That's BS. I know several people who counted on being laid off regularly. They only wanted to work part time. And did. UI *was* used as a subsidy for the employer.
What complete leftist drivel!
Typical leftist hysteria. Your true intelligence is showing.
You were talking ethics, the best foundation for all. Yes, I admit I was in a tactical frenzy while you wee talking ethics, which is the foundation for all situations. The ethical case, as I see it, would be clarified by asking Mr. Larkin one question: "What were you planning to do with the IP previous to the client's contact with you?" or "Did your interest in the IP originate with them?"
If Mr. Larkin's interest in the IP DID stem from them, then we may have a case of what they in law school call "Mr. Clancy's cow." You shoot the cow thinking it's a deer, and suddenly, the cow, according to Clancy, is the most prize Holstein breeder ever, worth a fortune.
Probably, the IP is basically valueless to Mr. Larkin, but valuable to the company. However, that can translate to benefit of Mr. Larkin in a negotiation. If the IP is their bright shiny apple, then Mr. Larkin can hopefully demand more money.
Now, is this ethical to use that knowledge in a negotiation? I'd say t is, if Mr. Larkin emphasizes his honest best efforts to produce it, and his key role to do so.
Now, is it ethical to demand a piece of the IP as a negotiating ploy? Yes, I think it is. After all, it's part of the deal here. It's what they are getting, and it should occupy a big part of the contract. It's maybe better to ask for
1% of their sales revenue. (not profit) Why? Because dividing IP is a difficult exercise legally. They don't want you giving it to a competitor, etc. And realistically, what are you going to do with it (the IP)? Better to sit back and collect a piece of their sales - .5% etc.
And here is how you can present your request for 1% of their sales. You can call it a "development incentive." You can tell them you want to "feel on board" or "part of the team" in order to motivate you to put in the extraordinary effort to pull this off. A joint development effort, with incentives. Don't forget, the fellows across the table from you are looking forward to a long retirement pay from the company. Why shouldn't you get something long term, as you give them the means to get their retirement?
Finally, there is a saying among lawyers, that "The lawyer who drafts the deal, controls it." So asap you can submit these points to them for inclusion, as a list of points to include and be debated. Or, you can counter their contract by adding your points in.
Oh, and be sure to put in a clause about arbitration before the AAS - Be sure it has the phrasing "this agreement will be final and binding." This levels the playing field against the lawyers there.
They may be laughing now, "Did you use the old bottle of beer trick before we screw this guy? Ha Ha."
John, can you gt someone else to andle the negotiation? Sometimes that intermediation is handy - he is not emotionally involved. And you can always step in and blame anything on him.
And another point: You can demand the IP, and then give up that point later on. They will feel they are screwing you, and you can work yourself up into that feeling - I note you have some tendency to do that. But as you "give up" the IP, you might increase the % of sales revenue, and stick to that.
This gives the lawyers a feeling they are doing something, being tough negotiators. And the secret is, you know the IP is worthless to you.
Another way to "sell" this % of sales is as a continuing consultant to make sure it will fly. Real concerned 100%.
the self correction factor in the public sector - the Bitcoin? :) I don't know if anyone has done this calculation, but every one of the bureaucrats wants to collect retirement for 40 years after they retire. The state and town governments are already in trouble over this. Some rail against welfare, but I've seen calcs that show most of the money never leaves DC. In calculating the burrowcat overhead, most calcs leave out the retirement benefits.
The economics of big government an interesting field, not the less so because most official statements are not true. These real-world calcs are the basis of the Austrian School, which says that big government and beneficial economics don't mix.
discourage people from making any money they can. Letting them keep some o f their wages would actually be a boost to everyone. They get more money i n their pockets, we pay less in unemployment.. but then "we" aren't paying unemployment for the most part, it is an insurance system paid for by the e mployers.
ld (otherwise it wouldn't allow people to refuse _any_ work).
it takes him to find an engineering job and give employers a cheap way out. It's called "abuse", which you seem to have no problem with.
(both directly and indirectly). Only a lefty believes in a free lunch.
because it is distracting both of us from work, play and other things that would make us both more productive. I'm talking about the direct payment which comes from the employer. By your analysis the promotional freebies a company gives out are paid for by all of us too. A silly point of view.
return their costs, plus profit, they wouldn't exist. UI is a tax. It is not a choice, so gets passed *directly* to the consumer (plus administratio n, plus profit).
cover the direct costs. That kitty has been empty for a decade.There is no way 99 weeks coverage was planned, or is even thought of when the insuranc e rates were set.
Unemployment insurance may look like a tax, but if it worked as insurance i t wouldn't be a tax.
It's perfectly reasonable to pay partial unemployment benefit to somebody w ho is still working part-time. People are more useful working in a job wher e they have got relevant experience, than they are when they have to go out and find a new job, where it takes a year or so before they know the new o rganisation properly and can fit themselves into it as part of a smoothly w orking system.
It wouldn't make sense if the part-time employer was unlikely to revert to being a full-time employer when the economy recovered, but employees can ma ke their own judgments about that - thye are likely to be better informed o n the subject than the local unemployment bureaucrats.
ed from your benefit. That was a huge disincentive to work. Now I think t here is no penalty at all. You can work and still collect your full SS che ck.
goes away if you wait until your "normal" age of retirement. Nothing has c hanged.
benefit is not reduced. It was before even if you didn't retire early. "Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get you r benefits with no limit on your earnings."
there was no point since they just lost all that income from their SS bene fits.
o reduce the burden on the budget). Up until that age, nothing has changed .
that not clear? It used to be that even after full retirement you could not collect full SS if you worked. So people *didn't* work.
ing a buck.
make a dime but it's terminated and you have to reapply if you have no earn ings next week.
lfare (for the recipient or the employer). It's purpose is to get the work er back to work (in his field, if possible). That's why many states didn't buy into the 99 weeks (and more) crap.
(assuming they have a "field") but loses all SS benefits and so doesn't, how does that help anyone? Giving him money to *not* work is the welfare version which is what you seem to have in your area.
point of UI. It's not supposed to be a subsidy for employers.
It's purpose is to keep the economy running as efficiently as possible, eve n - perhaps especially - through recessions.
The real damage done by the Great Depression was that it had shut down 25% of the businesses in the US before Franklin D. Roosevelt stopped the rot.
Any mechanism that keeps businesses together and sort of running - as oppos ed to going bankrupt and shutting down, or stripping themselves down to a s keleton staff - is obviously useful.
Free market enthusiasts want everything torn down at the least hint of a re cession, because the perfect free market will re-deploy them more efficient ly than they were deployed before. Sadly, the free market isn't perfect.
Of course, the "facts" that krw alludes to exist only in his own mind.
He's never posted a link to a generally accessible web site to demonstrate that his particular silly idea is shared by anybody else? Why should he? He knows that he is right (along with a lot of other information that "ain't so").
Or so krw believes. Not that he could post a link illustrating that anybody else shares his belief.
became double digit with many people running out of benefits because there were no jobs, the Feds stepped in and ponied up the money to extend b enefits. Until then it was mostly employer funds and probably still is.
ama's doing nothing to help it.
More of krw's unsupported assertions.
the end, but the same is true of your salary, the company picnic and all sorts of other things.
Not - of course - as clueless as krw, who believes that it is perfect and c an do no wrong.
employers don't want to lay people off.
They only wanted to work part time. And did. UI *was* used as a subsidy for the employer.
One of the many bits of evidence that only seem to exist inside krw's rathe r undisciplined imagination.
er* set as a goal. Rather than have people wandering the streets selling apples we have decided as a country to try to help people keep their homes and *not* go on welfare by giving them support in looking for a new job. But then I suppose there are always those who would consider that goal to be evil.
Meaning that krw doesn't agree with it. He wants far-right drivel - as if h e didn't have access to an over-generous supply of that.
ou have a workable alternative? Soylent green maybe?
Krw's claims about other people's intelligence do have a fairly high comic content. Krw must be the least intelligent of our regular posters - his ide as aren't any sillier than James Arthur's but he's nowhere near as good at a presenting them in way that conceals their fundamental fatuity.
Some of the IP is used in my products, and in designs that I have already licensed to other people. And "IP" can also include stuff that is in the public domain, that I know about and they don't. If I know something, and they don't, that is valuable in itself.
However, that can translate to benefit of Mr. Larkin in a negotiation.
I don't think that would be good politics. Our position is simple: we can help you, here are our terms, if you think them unreasonable get what you need somewhere else. We can win that game by offering them a better deal than they can get anywhere else. All perfectly ethical.
Engineers can do that sort of thing if they develop ideas that can't be found in AoE or ADI appnotes. There are tons of opportunities out there.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
That's ok and I have no problem with that if the solution is super special. Like a sensor or whatever. But I will not allow that for circuit tricks I might need again for very different projects.
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
what you design? I believe there are several dozen right here in this newsgroup.
John does do the kind of electronics that impresses physicists.
Review of Scientific Instruments has published enough of the kind of electr onics that impresses physicists and doesn't impress electronic engineers to make the distinction obvious. Phil is a very much better approximation to an electronic engineer than most physicists, but his judgement is still som ewhat flawed by his training.
My Ph.D. is in physical chemistry, so I can get away with that kind of obse rvation.
We have a niche. I know that other people here also have niches, stuff I couldn't do. The Internet now lets the few BigCo people with specialized needs find the few that can do what they need (usually in a hurry.) My point was that the relationship is sort of symmetric (they absolutely need the widget, we absolutely need customers) so, when they demand an absurd contract, push back. They *do* have more lawyers than we do.
If there are 100 other suppliers who can do what BigCo wants, it's going to be low-bid groveling for the business. So it's best to get really good at something so there aren't 100 competitors. With a little thought, that's not all that difficult.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
God, I read that and a shudder ran down my spine. Physical Chemistry... another shudder. I'd rather go back and take E&M. No, actually it wasn't that bad, but I did read bumper stickers that said, "Honk if you passed P-chem". I had Castellan who used his own book, while others used any other book. The result was that half his class would drop out each semester and in the second semester you were in a much smaller class where he would actually smile at you. lol
Interestingly enough, Jack Ganssle had a peice in his Muse newsletter recently about the value of IP. It seems that the bean counters have no notion of how to value IP properly. See .
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.