|
I’m interviewing to become the next spokesperson.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Is their headquarters a hub of activity? Wouldn't you get tired of it all?
|
|
|
|
|
Ok here it comes. Did you get to speak to the "big" wheel of the company?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Saddle up for a wild ride!
You might have to fork out some real dough to get started, but you'll soon be pedalling the company line!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You are going to peddle bicycles now?
Do you think you will get very far?
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear that their bicycles are perfectly balanced.
Truer spokes were never whirred.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Groan! we are being punished.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I just invoiced for something and now I can't write a community article about it, but it's a really good idea.
I should have written the article first, and then just billed my client for the implementation of it for their particular application.
I would have made significantly less, but here I am kicking myself because this isn't what I wanted. I guess I'll buy something nice instead.
The idea is solid, but I don't know how to separate it from the billable/deliverable work product without making something obviously derivative of it.
Anyone else ever run into that? Or maybe I just have tunnel vision. If that's the case, I'll have my aha moment eventually and produce something here.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of us can be described as "Tarts", in it for the money. So the idea of billing less than the market can bear so I could publish and article purely for the kudos probably does not work.
Go buy something neat for yourself.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
It's never happened to me, because I can't publish about what I work on.
It all depends on how your contracts with your clients are written. Are you selling an implementation, or are you selling the idea? If you want to re-use an idea, best that your contract specify that you are only selling the implementation
Perhaps you should discuss this with someone specialising in IP law...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't publish what I work on either, but I can work on what I publish, and adapt it for paying work, which is what I'm talking about, only this time I did it the other way 'round. Made more as a consequence, because the entire product was on the clock, but now I can't write in article about it, if that makes sense.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.
I only ever sell my implementations, as I am an independent contractor and I provide deliverables for money.
The exception is consulting, where I will provide an idea, and that's basically work product due to the nature of what I'm doing.
But as an independent contractor I can't afford to sell the rights to my software *ideas* usually, because I need an idea bank to draw from for future contracts in order to stay productive. I've always done it that way. Software contracts are basically piecework as far as I'm concerned.
But I don't want to charge for stuff that isn't specific to the job.
So what I typically do is I open source the idea, don't charge for it, and then charge for adapting it to the work.
I am pretty sure that is copacetic IP-wise, and my clients all know how I operate. They tend to be appreciative of this approach actually, because it means they pay less, and they get to draw on all of my previous open source.
It's one of the reasons I produce so much content here.
I hope that answers your question.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
My clients understand that as an experienced developer, I have a "code bank" of tools, functions, structures and so on that I "assemble" to meet clients' needs. I've personally developed that codebank over more than a quarter-century, and have translated parts of it into different languages, for subsequent implementation into various paid-for projects. If you were to analyse any of my projects, you'd probably find 90% is generic, just 10% actually customer-specific. What they're buying is (a) the rights to use my codebase (and to adapt it at any time in any way they wish), (b) some custom code to deliver project-specific functionality, and (c) my knowledge and skill to put the parts together to provide a solution to their business case. The 10% custom stuff is unlikely to be of any interest to other developers, and tends to be pretty bland code anyway. My own generic code - the building blocks - is mine. I do plan to publish various elements in due course (and have already done so in a couple of very simple cases).
This approach was decided on not so much to allow publication, but for purely practical reasons so I don't have to re-invent the same wheels for every client. It's a bit like using 3rd party frameworks or plugins, except that I'm the third party, so to speak. When a new client presents any new non-trivial problem, I generate a generic solution first (which tends to help when it comes to prototyping and testing), then provide a specific implementation of it for them.
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty much how I do it, except I make a point of open sourcing the building blocks (off the clock) before I incorporate them (on the clock) into client code.
However, in this case, I neglected to do that. I developed all of this on the clock. Whoops. It's because I didn't quite grasp how generally useful it was until after I developed it. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
"Ideas" aren't protected; a particular implementation is. "Anti-competition" has to be specifically spelled out (time limited); and there are laws against depriving someone of their (only source of) income. Also, which parts are fair use / prior art. And you can always negotiate "licensing" after the fact. (Mature) Companies are usually concerned about access to source code they paid for (escrow); not "ideas" in particular. And some software is useless without custom hardware (SCADA).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on. Is the contract for the implementation of a solution to solve a problem, or are they buying the rights to the intellectual property behind the implementation? When you get your engine fixed you aren't buying the rights to how to change a sparkplug, and one would assume when you buy a sculpture you aren't buying the rights to the innovative methods used to nail that piece of cheese to the bike wheel. You're buying the end product.
You could always just ask them if you could write an article about it...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It's just code, basically but the problem with it is it's maybe a few hundred lines of C++ all told, and the idea is so reflected in the code that anything I create from that same idea will look to any observer to be a derivative work.
If the idea were bigger, or the code that I produced somehow less general, then I could have done this. It's not a problem I run into often, but with this one I just can't separate the code from the idea.
Maybe if I come up with an alternative use case, something will hit me. There's a good chance this is simply a failure of imagination on my part.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I will start a new job this Monday and need to stay in meeting more time.
I need to buy a headset for skype meetings with good sound quality. any good suggestion and experience to share?
AirPod is in my mind, but I want to seek alternatives...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Field is too large for a meaningful answer. What are your requirements:
- shape: over the ear, on ear, in ear
- features: noise cancelling, transparency
- price: the sky, down to earth, dirt cheap
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
headset, not earbud, need microphone on it so that I can speak too, down to earth price....
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of years ago I was pleasantly surprised with this Taotronics headset. Very comfortable so you can wear the whole day even while wearing glasses. Sound quality and mic good enough. Noise cancelling fair. For 50$ or so you can't ask for more.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the link. very good list and I browsed and get my ideas...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
If you're in long meetings you might want to try a bone-conduction set . . . sound quality is probably not as good as your suggestions or a wired set, but having your ears open to the air is a lot more comfortable for long sessions.
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Shokz OpenComm UC is supposed to be the new hotness.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
