
Ask HN: Royalty based compensation for software engineers? - thunkshift1
Relevant article -
https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eetimes.com&#x2F;document.asp?doc_id=1143972#<p>What are your thoughts on teams getting paid for software per use? Something similar to how artists are paid on spotify (only better).<p>Recently Tim Cook made some statements about how a college degree is not needed for getting a programming job. While taking such an approach would be convenient for big tech companies (more, cheap, disposable labor), it would be decidedly inconvenient for those who have spent considerable time and effort in getting their education (and building systems for tech companies to profit from).<p>The value of all that engineering effort is &#x27;locked-in&#x27; in an ip owned by the company to make profits in perpetuity (Or as long as the company decides to keep the line of products alive) - while the engineers can with their degrees and knowledge have to make do with salary, bonuses etc.<p>Stocks is one way of doing it; but there are vesting schedules to deal with and number of stocks awarded do no take other metrics like usage into consideration. Also stock market prices are subject to &#x27;market conditions&#x27;.<p>Do you think engineering teams should demand more share for the use of their software in light of companies wanting more fungible teams&#x2F;resources?
======
oblib
I think when you say "use of their software" you run into issues that need to
be better defined.

If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finished product is
not yours. It belongs to the person or company that paid you to make it.

I used to build custom cars. No one ever paid me to build a car for me, or
paid me when they drove the car I built for them.

I can't imagine why building software for someone should be any different.

I could have built a car and offered to rent it to others, and in essence that
is what building a web app and offering it as a subscription service is, and I
do that now, and so can you.

~~~
thunkshift1
How to identify which piece of software to choose for royalty -> Software IP
definition is a contentious and thorny issue. This is something that does need
to be better defined and I agree with that part.

However the car analogy is not correct.

'If you're getting paid a salary to create something the finished product is
not yours. It belongs to the person or company that paid you to make it.' ->
Yes, ownership lies with the employer. I am not talking about engineers
"owning" the entire finished product, or even important components within
within them; but that their efforts in developing these core parts should be
acknowledged in terms of royalty payments other than salary (depending on
usage of those components). Also note that I am talking about royalties for
teams, not individuals.

'I can't imagine why building software for someone should be any different.'
-> It depends on what kind of software you are building. if your team does
build a software that makes a ton of money for your company, why shouldn't it
be made part of those proceeds as well? In fields like hardware design which
relies on IP based models, this way of compensation does exist (the EE times
article). This is true for life-sciences too. In fact some EU countries also
have laws for it.

