Social Media Team
Agreed, it would be interesting to know. A lot of our contracts at work start with a clause from the client saying "we own any IP relating to this project", which we're very quick to remove (if needs be with our lawyers) as our tools, calculation methodologies and models/drawings are what we're selling. It's a tough one though, as there is a strong argument from the other side. Often it comes down to what's being paid for.What I would find more intriguing is how this contract between Disney and Vekoma is written. One would think that Vekoma would be filing the patent as the original equipment manufacturer, but in this case they appear to be playing a full service supplier role.
If we're paid to design a building, and to do so we develop a tool to help us design a particular element of it, that IP is often ours. If we're paid to design a building with a new tool, then that IP is often owned by the client. The difference is subtle, but key. I'm no lawyer though, so I don't get wrapped up in the nitty-gritty of it all.
It would seem likely to me that Disney are funding Vekoma's R&D, likely with a secondary contract for the ride if the R&D comes though. In this case, I think it would be fair that Disney would own the IP. They may have an agreement that Disney will own the IP for a number of years (enough to let them implement the ride technology in a few of their parks), at which point they will sell or licence it back to Vekoma. It'd be good to know.