>
Well, I don't know. I had a lawyer and they had at least one lawyer and they both agreed I owned the software. I think that says something.
<

I am not sure what it says. The key of course is the rationale and the argument for why you own the software. Saying something and arguing the point to persuade a judge/jury is quite another issue.

If the other side caves in, there is not much to debate. In effect, they have ceded ownership.

Ultimately, it is both a legal and ethical issue. One's ethics will dictate how they shape the facts. How the facts are perceived will determine how the rule of law is applied.

Because it always boils down to issues of fact, both sides can be argued. You see the facts one way and the other side sees the facts differently. Hence, you have 2-sides. The very essense of our system.

Lawyers typically don't say "You own it...". Typically, a lawyer will say "You own it because.......but on the other hand, the other side will argue this...."

< JVP >