Free Locked Software Development

Why Software Ownership Needs a Rethink

I’ve been reflecting on how the industry treats intellectual property, particularly in software development. The contracts we sign with companies often include clauses that state that anything we create—any software or tool — is owned by the company. And it’s not just limited to the work we do during office hours; often, these clauses extend beyond the scope of our employment and even attempt to limit what we can do after leaving the company.

It’s frustrating, especially when you consider that the software we build, the tools we create, are often seen as nothing more than the company’s property to be locked away. But why? Why does this seem to be the default? Why does the idea of creating software — something meant to solve problems and evolve — become so locked down and constrained?

It’s clear to me that the whole system is designed to keep the company’s interests in place, at the expense of the very individuals who contribute to the development of these tools. But here’s the problem: there’s no real competitive edge in software anymore, because software is cheap, accessible, and can be created by anyone. What truly matters is how it’s operated.

Software is a tool, a means to an end. The real value is in how it’s used, how it operates within a system, and how it adapts to meet the needs of the market. When companies close off access to software after an employee leaves, they’re not just controlling a tool — they’re hindering innovation. They’re preventing the software from evolving, from adapting, and from solving new problems. It’s not a matter of protecting intellectual property; it’s about restricting the potential of a tool that could be used to create something even better.

The Myth of Investment as a Justification for Ownership

One common argument made by companies is that the financial investment they make in software development justifies their ownership of the software. Yes, companies invest significant resources into building software, but let’s be clear — the scale of investment doesn’t automatically give them ownership of what is created.

Any company, regardless of its financial backing, can invest similar amounts in software development. But the value of software is not in the raw capital spent, but in the execution and adaptation that comes after the tool is built. The software becomes valuable not because of the money spent, but because of how it’s used and how it evolves over time to meet new needs. Just because a company funds the creation of a tool doesn’t give them a perpetual claim to it, especially when the real advantage comes from how that software adapts and grows.

The competitive edge in today’s tech landscape isn’t about who invested more — it’s about who can iterate faster and adapt to the market more effectively. The chess move, the strategic play, is what truly defines a company’s success. It’s not about who has the most money; it’s about how a company uses that money to respond to the market’s ever-evolving demands.

Protecting Interests Through Innovation, Not Control

Another argument often made is that companies need to control the software they create in order to protect their investment and their competitive position. But this is an outdated mindset. Protecting a company’s interests doesn’t require locking down the software indefinitely; it comes from the company’s ability to innovate, adapt, and evolve their product over time.

The value of software doesn’t lie in who owns it; it lies in how it operates and how it meets the changing needs of the users. When companies focus on creating ecosystems that are dynamic, integrated, and constantly evolving in response to feedback, they naturally protect their market position. Instead of restricting the software’s evolution, companies should focus on improving it, making it indispensable, and allowing it to solve problems in new ways.

By trying to control the software and lock it down, companies fail to see the bigger picture. What really protects their market position is their ability to innovate — to adapt to new problems faster than the competition. When they focus on adapting and improving their software, rather than hoarding it, they maintain a real competitive advantage. The idea that companies need to “own” their software forever doesn’t hold up in a world where rapid adaptation and innovation are the true measures of success.

Non-Competes Don’t Protect, They Prevent Progress

One of the worst practices in the industry is the use of non-compete clauses, which prevent employees from working on similar projects after they leave a company. These clauses are presented as a way to protect the company’s intellectual property, but in reality, they prevent innovation. Rather than fostering new ideas, they lock talented individuals into a single framework, restricting their ability to continue their work and apply their skills elsewhere.

This type of control doesn’t protect the company’s interests. It limits the potential of their own software by preventing former employees from continuing to evolve it or use it in new ways. Non-competes create a stagnant environment, one where the focus is more on control than on progress. It shows fear and a lack of confidence in the company’s ability to innovate.

Rather than restricting innovation by preventing employees from moving forward, companies should focus on creating products that are so valuable and well-integrated that they cannot easily be replaced. The competition in the market shouldn’t be about who can keep others from using their software, but about who can create the best, most effective products that people want to use. Innovation thrives when people are free to explore and iterate, not when they’re held back by restrictive clauses.

A Shift in the Narrative: Letting Innovation Drive Success

The current model of intellectual property ownership is flawed. Software is not a static tool to be locked away — it is a dynamic, evolving product that becomes valuable only through continuous adaptation and use. Companies that focus too heavily on controlling their software are missing the point. In today’s market, the true value lies not in ownership, but in operation and innovation.

It’s time to shift the conversation around software ownership. Companies should focus on creating systems that allow their software to grow, evolve, and adapt, rather than trying to restrict it. The real value in software isn’t who owns it — it’s how it’s used, how it solves problems, and how it continues to evolve. The more freely software can evolve, the more value it can provide to the market.

When employees are free to continue developing and iterating on the software they created, that’s when true innovation happens. Companies shouldn’t be so focused on ownership; they should be focused on creating tools that solve problems, that are adaptable, and that continuously improve. The competitive edge doesn’t come from locking down intellectual property — it comes from the ability to evolve and meet new challenges.

Software is a tool, not a product to be locked away. And in the end, the companies that thrive will be the ones that understand this and focus on creating the best possible tools, not the ones that are obsessed with controlling their intellectual property. If you feel like you have a different opinion, please let me know in some way, I am more than happy to discuss it with you.