>I said:
>"Without a signed agreement, ownership of the copyright defaults to the author." (in the context of an IC)
>
>And You said:
>"However, even if the programmer is deemed to be an IC, the contract (both the oral and written parts) specify the ownership rights are assigned to the customer upon project completion."
>
>The key words are "without a signed agreement"
>
>Your assertion implies a signed agreement. Mine implies no such agreement. We both assert that the developer is an IC. Were you aware of this when the apple/orange comparison began:-)
>

Here is a question to you: How do you have a signed oral agreement? A signed piece of paper is not dispositive of the issue of whether a K exists. If you can find where I make a specific assertion that limits the def. of a K to a signed writing, then your comments would be accurate. In fact, the only word I used that contained the word signed was when I used the word assigned...

The threshold issue IS NOT a K. Rather, it is the classification of the individual as employee or IC. Once you get past that issue, you can then address the issues regarding the K. Depending on the circumstances, parole evidence rules will dictate whether non-written portions of a K can be introduced for evidence.

I do not make the assertions you suggest. I presented scnearios for both employee and IC. The default rules turn on how you classify the individual. A good lawyer develops equally effective arguments for why his client is either an employee or an IC and effective alternative arguments for the interpretation of a K. In some cases, the lawyer may have to argue a K exists before he can argue how the court should interpret. Obviously, if his client is deemed to be an IC, the lawyer will argue that a K does not exist. If his client is deemed to be an employee, the lawyer will argue that not only does an agreement exist, the agreement gives his client ownership of the software. For more details, I will refer you to the Reid Case.