In this chapter I aim to point out that negotiating the ownership of source code is vital to both parties and we should always use a great deal of respect to our intentions before going into any sort of contract. Also, we should never mistake our literal interpretations for our own misconceptions of what appears to be "legal jargon." This sort of stuff is always best when both parties know exactly where the other party stands.
I must admit that this may have been a very ambitious topic to do in only one week after exploring the dynamics of such a problem. As my research has been somewhat discouraging, I have found that their really is no line that is clearly defined though there is an entire library of perspectives on it.
My research has lead me to some level of conclusion that if there is no formal agreement on the ownership of the source code, then the law presumes the source code is the property of the author unless it was done as a work for hire. While the author may be an employee, the source code would then also be presumed to be a work for hire, meaning that the employee was under the direct supervision and the control of the employer. However, as a contractor, then in theory your activities are not directed or controlled thus you "create" the work. A "work made for hire" pretty much screws the developer out of everything they contribute, so developers should never reuse anything at all in the project if they have any intention of ever using it again.
When all said and done owning the code does not necessarily mean you can actually pursue a litigation against anyone else for assuming some of the methods therein. As to suggest, no one can own the feature of adding, editing, or deleting records in general as this is a standard feature. While you may own the code itself, "standards" can be argued and disputed in court. In the end you would have just as much luck taking someone to court for using conditionals and functions in their code because those are existent in your application.
However, if you are the client and you do in fact own the code than you do have some regime over the developer who developed the application and you can have some argument to take the developer to court for reusing the code (or any part of it) on other projects, no matter how general (or standard) the feature may be. Of Course that's not to ignore the fact that the roles can easily be reversed. This is a huge gaping hole in our legal system if you ask me, as it can seriously disable both parties from even competing. While this is currently being recognized this recognition has been in process for over a decade and lines haven't even began to be drawn between right or wrong. Therefore, it is always a smart decision to take this stuff seriously and take the time to iron it out before ever even performing the work.
In concluding this chapter I would like to ask you. Could you imagine a world where our own language was a protectable property? Where every word is the sole property of the first person to assume it's definition. Where do you think we would be? Also, is it any difference?