[dgfitz]

In my simple mind, if software has been "released" it is no longer R&D, and "bug fixes" (which should include continuous improvements such as your example) are not research.

I may be way, way wrong though.

[jandrese]

That seems too exploitable to pass muster in the court. If you release Beta 0.0.1 of your software after 2 months of development then spend the next 5 years getting it up to version 1.0 that's clearly a development effort not a maintenance effort.

[shakna]

> such as marketing and promotional activities, maintenance activities that do not give rise to upgrades and enhancements, distribution activities

If it leads to a new release, then its software dev. Meaning anything more than a minor patch is going to count.

[hansvm]

That's the reason we have courts, to cut through those gray areas.

[andrewlgood]

No. That is why you have auditors who must sign off on your financial books and records. There are fairly strict rules about capitalization of software development. If it is a meaningful number for your firm, then the auditors will review in detail.

[tomrod]

Is it?