Transfer PLC program to end-user

[Tom Jenkins]

I would have my customer sign a single site license agreement. It included language that restricted the use to a single facility and existing machines. It also indicated that any future subcontractor, engineering consultants, integrators, etc. had to be notified that they were bound by these restrictions. It also relieved me of any responsibility for the software if it was modified in any way.

Then I would provide the full commented logic program and HMI program on CD.

Obviously the motivated customer could cheat on this, but most people and organizations are honest. I was dealing with primarily municipal customers, so their consultants were the real target of the agreement. Let's face it - there is no way to totally prevent scoundrels from stealing your work.

 

[I_Automation]

Let's face it - there is no way to totally prevent scoundrels from stealing your work.

But if someone buys a cloned machine with a copy of your program you still provide phone and online warranty and technical support for your NOT-customer, right?

 

[NetNathan]

Happened to me on a Wonderware and PLC conversion.
They hired me to do 1 machine and then they just duplicated my work across the other 10.

 

[timryder]

Just print out a .pdf and email it to them.

If they want to give that to someone to recreate, then good luck!

I write all my logic in Structured Text in German HAHAHA!

 

[Tom Jenkins]

But if someone buys a cloned machine with a copy of your program you still provide phone and online warranty and technical support for your NOT-customer, right?

Actually, that never happened. These were systems for wastewater treatment plants. I built over 200 of them, and there were no two the same. If it had happened, my answer would not have been no, but H..LL NO!

 

[cardosocea]

Happened to me on a Wonderware and PLC conversion.
They hired me to do 1 machine and then they just duplicated my work across the other 10.

Why is this considered wrong? Someone paid for your engineering time to provide a product for them (prints and code).
Since you didn't do the 10 other machines you're also not liable for anything that happens to/with them and you can always deny phone support for the company and require a site visit to look at what's wrong with the machine you converted and none of the others.

I can see where you may feel slighted by it, but they didn't buy a machine from you... just the upgrade and they're free to use the results of that purchase in any way they like, provided of course, they take the responsibility for what they did.

 

[I_Automation]

Since you didn't do the 10 other machines you're also not liable for anything that happens to/with them ...

In America if you have ANY connection to a machine that someone is suing over you will be in court. Even if it has been modified after you left or a copy was made based on your work even if modified by someone else without your knowledge or approval.


One way I cover myself is to put copyrights on all programs, drawings, etc. Then if my work is copied and I can prove to the court it was copyright infringement I CAN be dropped from the suit - but still not guaranteed.

 

[cardosocea]

In America if you have ANY connection to a machine that someone is suing over you will be in court. Even if it has been modified after you left or a copy was made based on your work even if modified by someone else without your knowledge or approval.

Every day that goes by I find it funnier how wrong the conception of how the USA actually works is for a lot of people outside it.

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

 

[Manglemender]

Why is this considered wrong? Someone paid for your engineering time to provide a product for them (prints and code).
Since you didn't do the 10 other machines you're also not liable for anything that happens to/with them and you can always deny phone support for the company and require a site visit to look at what's wrong with the machine you converted and none of the others.

I can see where you may feel slighted by it, but they didn't buy a machine from you... just the upgrade and they're free to use the results of that purchase in any way they like, provided of course, they take the responsibility for what they did.

I've had this happen in the past where a well known paint company took my designs and software and gave them to another company to reproduce. What the customer bought was the upgrading of a paint distribution system an agreed specification and performance. They did not buy the IP in design and software! The other company made a killing because they had no design/engineering to do. To repeat: The customer bought equipment, they did not buy the design!

This is always a grey area. how would it be if you bought a Ford car then decided to copy it and then sell the copies? Do you think Ford would be OK with that?

Nick

 

[Iner]

I've had this happen in the past where a well known paint company took my designs and software and gave them to another company to reproduce. What the customer bought was the upgrading of a paint distribution system an agreed specification and performance. They did not buy the IP in design and software! The other company made a killing because they had no design/engineering to do. To repeat: The customer bought equipment, they did not buy the design!

This is always a grey area. how would it be if you bought a Ford car then decided to copy it and then sell the copies? Do you think Ford would be OK with that?

Nick

That's a perpetual debate. There are two sides.


- The customer who has a machine or a production line and need to be able to troubleshoot it, to support and upgrade it for up to 20 years.


- The constructor who needs to recover the development costs.




I would say that any customer specific work and development sold at the same time than the machine should be the property of the customer since he paid for it.


But if a constructor develop something very specific to integrate it for several customers in the future, like in serial machines , then the development costs have not been paid by the customer and the programs may not be given if it is valuable enough to be kept. If there is nothing special in it, then there is no point keeping it hidden.

 

[Tom Jenkins]

Why is this considered wrong? Someone paid for your engineering time to provide a product for them (prints and code).

If this is a project where the customer is explicitly paying for engineering and programming as part of a custom system then you are correct. An example would be a one-off machine to put the twist in cherry licorice sticks.

If this is a semi-standard machine and the supplier is providing standard or slightly modified proprietary control based on past and future product offerings the design and programming are part of the suppliers investment and overhead. The customer has no right to the design or the software. An example would be a press for stamping out lock washers.

In any case the supplier and the customer should explicitly state in the purchase documents what is intellectual property of each party. That's just good business.

 

[mk42]

Every day that goes by I find it funnier how wrong the conception of how the USA actually works is for a lot of people outside it.

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

How the USA actually works: IT DOESN'T, except that somehow it does anyway! We're just a giant random number generator, accidentally succeeding en mass. For every thousand people who get bad rolls, someone accidentally turns out amazingly successful and pulls the average waaay up. No one knows what they're doing, even if they think they do.

So far we've been running on the assumption that probability is stacked in our favor, and the more chances we take the better we do.

That's a perpetual debate. There are two sides.


- The customer who has a machine or a production line and need to be able to troubleshoot it, to support and upgrade it for up to 20 years.


- The constructor who needs to recover the development costs.




I would say that any customer specific work and development sold at the same time than the machine should be the property of the customer since he paid for it.


But if a constructor develop something very specific to integrate it for several customers in the future, like in serial machines , then the development costs have not been paid by the customer and the programs may not be given if it is valuable enough to be kept. If there is nothing special in it, then there is no point keeping it hidden.

From my perspective this is something that should always need to be clearly spelled out in the contracts up front. If the integrator knows that he's just building IP for his customer, he won't price things in such a way that he expects to be able to recoup development time later on down the road. If the customer knows that the machine builder won't give up their IP, then they have the option of finding someone else who will.

It's a touchy subject, but if people just TALK about this kind of stuff at the beginning, it short cuts a lot (but not all) of hassle down the road.

 

[Handcraftedsince87]

We're just a giant random number generator, accidentally succeeding en mass.

Ha ha, well said.

 

[ganutenator]

If it is a factory w/ technicians or the like, then they almost always get a copy w/ documentation.
I've been a programmer since 1997, and this is the first time working for an OEM and we do not give it to them.
Try to make everything able to troubleshootable from the HMI.
Plus, these rocket scientists can barely turn on a computer. You ask them if the light on the power strip is on, they say: "power what?"
Whoever said you have to be smart to be rich, never worked in the car wash industry.
And there is no such thing (to my knowledge) as such a thing as a plc program that can't be copied. So I don't understand that portion.
I use google drive and share a link to large file sizes.
disclaimer: I did not read every reply.

__________
~ How hard can it be? It only goes Up and Down.

 

[kamenges]

Originally posted by mk42:

From my perspective this is something that should always need to be clearly spelled out in the contracts up front.

This has been said several different times in several different ways but it bears repeating. In a perfect world YOU don't get to decide if and how the end user gets a copy of the software. That should be stated in the contract. If it isn't, then things get interesting. My fundamental feeling is if the contract doesn't say you have to then you don't have to. However, I'm not sure where the law actually comes down on this. My guess is he with the best lawyer wins.

As mk42 said, the best thing to do about this up front is to actually talk about it. Even if it is already buried in the contract, bring it up. It will save much grief later.

Keith