System and method for software development

• US 7,401,031 B2
• Filed: 06/07/2006
• Issued: 07/15/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 04/08/2002
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Original Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Inventors: Hughes, John M.
• Primary Examiner(s): Smith; Jeffrey A.
• Assistant Examiner(s): DESHPANDE, KALYAN K
• Application Number:
  US11/448,471
• Publication Number:
  US 20060229929A1
• Time in Patent Office: 769 Days
• Field of Search: 705/9
• US Class Current: 705/7.13
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/20 Software design
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/70 Software maintenance or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06311 Scheduling, planning or task assignment for a person or group
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/063112 Skill-based matching of a person or a group to a task
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/12 Accounting

Abstract

This invention relates to a method and apparatus for developing software. In one embodiment, a method for facilitating the distributed development of software components includes providing a skill rating for software developers, communicating specifications for a software component to a subset of the developers, receiving submissions from the developers, scoring the submissions, and selecting one submission to be included in a software repository. In another embodiment, a method for compensating a software developer includes soliciting software developers for the submission of computer software components, receiving software components in response to the solicitation from the developers, evaluating the received software components, selecting one or more of the submissions for potential distribution to the public, and allotting the proceeds from the distribution to the developers.

Claims

1. A method for compensating software developers, the method comprising:

(a) initiating software development contests by soliciting a plurality of developers for submissions of computer software programs;

(b) receiving, as entries in the software development contests and in response to an offer to compete for allotment of potential ongoing royalties, submissions from at least one of the plurality of developers;

(c) deriving a score using a computer, for each of the submissions using one or more scorecards for the at least one submission from a review of the submission that includes evaluation of compliance with specifications for the submissions by a plurality of review board members in a coding competition, wherein one or more of the review board members are each rated developers not including the developer who submitted the at least one submission;

(d) selecting one or more winning entries for inclusion in a repository for distribution to the public based on the scores assigned to the submissions;

(e) allotting potential ongoing royalties to one or more developers of the winning entries, the potential ongoing royalties based at least in part on potential proceeds from future distributions of the winning entries in the repository and

(f) paying royalties to the one or more developers in response to the allotted royalties and proceeds from distributions of the winning entries.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising, prior to step (a), rating the software developers.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the software developers are rated based on their performance in the coding competition.

4. The method of claim 2 wherein the software developers are rated based on prior submissions of a design for a software program.

5. The method of claim 2 wherein the software developers are rated based on prior submissions of a software program.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the software program is a software component.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the software program can be one or more of:

a software application, a combination of software components, or a software module.

8. The method of claim 1 wherein the developers are solicited based at least in part on their rating.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the developers are solicited based on the developers having a rating.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein allotting the potential ongoing royalties is at least in part based on the rating of the one or more developers.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein allotting the potential ongoing royalties is at least in part based on the number of hours the one or more developers of the winning entries spent coding the winning entries.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the proceeds are at least in part based on the number of times winning entries are distributed.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the offer is to compete for a prize and for allotment of potential ongoing royalties.

14. The method of claim 1 wherein the potential ongoing royalties are based at least in part on a royalty pool percentage, the royalty pool percentage comprising a percentage of total revenue received from the future distributions of the winning entries.

15. The method of claim 14 wherein the royalty pool percentage is determined prior to the initiation of the software development contest.

16. The method of claim 1 wherein the winning entry is developed by a team of developers.

17. The method of claim 16 wherein the ongoing royalties are shared among members of the team of developers.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein the ongoing royalties are shared based on a contribution percentage attributed to each member of the team.

19. An article of manufacture having computer-readable program portions embodied thereon for compensating software developers, the article comprising computer-readable instructions for:

(a) initiating software development contests by soliciting a plurality of developers for submissions of computer software programs;

(b) receiving, as entries in the software development contest and in response to an offer to compete for allotment of potential ongoing royalties, submissions from at least one of the plurality of developers;

(c) deriving a score for each of the submissions using one or more scorecards for the at least one submission from a review of the submission that includes evaluation of compliance with specifications for the submissions by a plurality of review board members in a coding competition, wherein one or more of the review board members are each rated developers not including the developer who submitted the at least one submission;

(d) selecting one or more winning entries for inclusion in a repository for distribution to the public based on the scores assigned to the submissions;

(e) allotting potential ongoing royalties to one or more developers of the winning entries, the potential ongoing royalties based at least in part on potential proceeds from future distributions of the winning entries to third parties and;

(f) paying royalties to the one or more developers in response to the allotted royalties and proceeds from distributions of the winning entries.