Interesting. Thanks for the write-up. However, I take a different stance than you on the following point (IOW, I agree more with how the law stands).

> Here, we have law that is "good" which in my opinon, screws the people that fund the work.

I guess you're referring to situations similar to the one that John H brought up, in which you implied that the company got screwed.

The way I view it, if the company goes into the contract under the pretense that the work being done is for an internal need, then the developer is providing for that need. IOW, the company is buying the right to use the software written for that need.

It wouldn't be fair, IMO if the company invested, say 10k in a product for its own use and then made 100k+ by selling it, if the developer doesnt get a cut. The layout you seem to want would be more similar to how the record industry works, which almost always screws the artist and lines the pockets of those that wrote the contract.

As you said, ideally, the terms should be laid out up front, but I guess we disagree on the defaults.