10.18.2017 15:05
XƏBƏR MENYUSU
Axtar
...
№ 1
2004-cü ilin dekabr ayından çıxır.
Təsisçi
Azərbaycan Beynəlxalq Avtomobil Daşıyıcıları (ABADA) İctimai Birliyi
Azərbaycan Respublikası Ədliyyə Nazirliyi Hüquqi Şəxslərin Dövlət Qeydiyyatı üzrə Bakı Bölgə Şöbəsində 16 sentyabr 2004-cü il tarixdə dövlət qeydiyyatına alınmışdır.

ŞƏHADƏTNAMƏ: 0104-P72-40981



WHAT BELONGS TO ME IS MINE, BUT THE THING BELONGING TO YOU IS MINE TOO


Karin B., Sinniger was born and Raised
in Asia but is of European origin. She
holds law degrees from both U.S. and
UK universities and has done deals on
virtually every continent. She is a senior
legal advisor for BP’s Azerbaijan Business
Unit based in Baku, Azerbaijan and can be
reached at sinnigkb@hp.com. The views
expressed inthis column are her own and
not necessarily those of the BP Group.

The author of the article is an experienced lawyer in the field of business. The problems of selling and using of goods and services containing elements of intellectual property are being explained in a present article in a very interesting way by the example of computer software market. The problem of sharing of copyright between consumers and authors of proprietary software is one of the most significant issues that we face nowadays. The author provides businessmen working in this field with very useful suggestions as well.


Have you ever noticed how many contractors want you to pay them for a product and also want to retain all intellectual property (IP) associated with delivering that product to you? This is fine and dandy if you are buying off-the-shelf software or a commodity research report, but far from acceptable if you are paying for specialized software or a consultant to provide tailored market research.
I have no problem with contractors or consultant making a profit by charging each of us a fraction of what it cost them to write the code for, say, a new software product. We all know the drill: you pay a few hundred dollars for the latest version of a generic product like Windows®, and in return you receive a license from the software provider to use this software. It would obviously be unreasonable to expect the software provider to transfer ownership of the source code to you in the bargain, since the price you paid for the software doesn’t come close to that expended by the software provider in developing this software. So, unless you are willing to reimburse the software provider for its software development costs plus a profit margin, being a licensee is as good as it gets.
But let’s say you want a software provider to write a program that will allow you to automatically account for the unique tax laws of all the states in which you have upstream oil operations. Your generic accounting software doesn’t have this feature because it was desgned so that any type of business could use it. There aren’t enough oil companies out there code profitable for software vendors, so you decide to go it alone and specially commission a software vendor to write the program for you. You agree to pay the software vendors all of its programming costs (which includes a profit margin), help test the software on your systems, and give the vendor feedback to help improve the code.
You would think this is so clearly what IP lawyers call a “work made for hire” (in which the ownership rights to the software transfer from the vendor to the client) that there couldn’t be any argument. You’d be wrong.
Most software vendors, accounting firms, market research firms, and other consultants I have dealt with fight tooth and nail not only to charge top dollar for producing specialized products for us, but also to retain the IP in the work that we paid them to produce.
“But you’re not in the (insert the name of the contractor’s business)”, they say plaintively. “You’re not going to sell this to anyone else, so why should you care if we market this to third parties?”.
“First of all, I don’t like the thought of your selling what we paid you to develop especially for us to our competitors," I respond.
“Okay, we’ll agree not to sell this to anyone in the oil or energy business.”
“That’s nice, but I also don’t like the idea of your being able to sell what we paid you big bucks for to third parties at a fraction of the price we paid because you have already covered your cost of producing this product courtesy of us. Heck, I don’t like the idea of your selling what is really our product to anyone else and getting nothing in return for it, period. You’d laugh in our face if we asked you to let us use your products forfree, so why do you think we should let you use our stuff for free? Just because you developed something for us doesn’t mean you own it.”
“You’re right to say that we’re not in your business and that we’re not going to start marketing this product ourselves, but if you want the right to market our product you’ll have to give us something in return, I continue.
“So you want us to develop this product for you and pay you to boot?” they ask incredulously.
“I’m not saying you need to pay us anything now,” I respond. “Although if you discount your reates sufficiently, we may agree to give you non-exclusive rights to license our product or even outright ownership in the IP. But I suspect neither of us really knows how useful this product will be until it’s finished. I’m therefore proposing that we retain ownership rights for now. If you decide you what to market this product, we can talk about granting you a license or even outright ownership of the IP so that you can market this product in return for free or discounted software upgrades, price breaks on future work, etc. The point is that if we now agree to cede ownership of this product’s IP to you for nothing, this option will forever be closed to us. Whereas if we retain ownership rights in the IP we leave ourselves room to negotiate. We’re not saying we won’t let you market our product, we’re just saying you’ll have to give us something in return. Fair’s fair.”
“Well…”
“Oh and one more thing.”
“What’s that?”
“We’ll need you to hand over all notes, backup disks, user manuals and other work product associated with this product to us. The knowledge that your employees derive from working on this project and that resides in their unaided memories – that’s free.”

MƏNƏ MƏXSUS OLANLAR MƏNIMDIR, ANCAQ SƏNƏ MƏXSUS OLANLAR DA MƏNIMDIR



Karin B.,
hüquqşünas


Məqalənin müəllifi biznes mühitində təcrübəli bir mütəxəssis hüquqşünasdir. Məqalədə müasir dövrdə xüsusilə özündə intellektual mülkiyyətin elementlərini daşiyan mal və xidmətlərin satişi və sonraki istifadəsi üzrə məsələləri kompüter proqramlarinin timsalinda maraqli bir üslubda izah edilir. Xüsusi kompüter proqramlarini satin alanlarla onlarin müəllifləri arasinda satişdan sonra müəllif hüquqlarinin bölüşdürülməsi bu gün qarşilaşdiğimiz vacib problemlərdəndir. Müəllif iş adamlarina bu sahədə öz maraqli məsləhətlərini verir.



 

Принадлежащие мне-мои, но принадлежащие тебе- тоже мои


Карин Б.,
юрист-правовед


Автор статьи опытный специалист–юрист в среде бизнеса. В статье на примере компьютерных програм разъясняется использование обладающих элементами интеллектуальной собственности товаров и услуг в современной эпоху. После продажный раздел авторских прав между авторами специальных компьютерных программ и их покупателями является одной из важнейших проблем, с которыми мы сталкиваемся сегодня. Автор выступает с некоторыми интересными для деловых людей советами в данной области.


MÜNDƏRİCAT

Актуальные вопросы транспортного права
Maraqlıdır
 
The chairman of scientific council


PAŞAYEV A.M.

Hava haqqında
Diqqət

Müəlliflə redaksiyanın mövqeyi uyğun olmaya bilər.

Göndərilən əlyazmalar, fotolar geri qaytarılmır.