Very good topic Truffle.

There should be no discertion between them both. I guess you have to disect the topic and break down the arguable components and myths.

Why are designers more precious about surface design yet do not value the IP of scripting to the same significance? Ok.....

a) I think there is an assumption that the development of code does not draw on the unique principles of creativity par-se. I think there is a genuine appreciation for the experience from designers, but they also define the solution as somewhat envitable and that the code was bound to be developed at some point or another. I'm sure there is a thought process that postulates, "cool, that's been developed now, can I have it to save me redoing it?"
In fact, I'm sure that most unique ground breaking code is derived from similar levels of lateral thinking in the search for a creative experience. This is most poynient in Flash scripting.

Essentially, it's the same game whether developing a visual identity or a navigation experience; I want to develop something memorable and engaging, I want to develop something that resonates with my audience, I want it to be unique so that it carves an identity in a crowded market.

b) Old habits die hard. The design industry has derived from the advertising / print design industries. This has hardly modelled itself on the caring and sharing principles that are the foundations of the web. Coders have (generally) been supportive of other developers by posting code in order to grow are fledgling, post-natal industry and existence. The net was spawn on the notion that "everything's free". Print designers who've migrated into this arena have injected some necessary reality into the game. Code is code and will get copied, but at least let your competitors bill their client more for the redevelopment so that you own a competive advantage for your R & D. I doubt there's any copyright law that mirrors the litigious armoury designer's can unleash upon a kleptomaniac.

It's a hard balance between commercial realities and community. But remember, you may be discerning about who you give it too, but will they? Once it's off your CPU, it's essentially freeware.

c) Perception is reality. Unfortunately, if I can't see it, I don't appreciate it. If I don't appreciate it, I don't value it. If I don't value it, I don't have problem taking it for free. Like most cases, this scenario is derived from the top down, and the client is generally the most important (if not the only) component in the sales cycle. Code?? Client's don't care how you do it, they're just interested in how it "looks" when it's finished. This is how they identify the project. This philosophy extends itself into the development cycle and becomes entrenched within the industry.

d) Logo vs code is hardly an appropriate comparision, Brand development in essential in today's market. Logos and other visual identities can be and are extended beyond the web medium alone. Therefore the more accesible visual element needs to be more closely protected than code alone. This should not devalue code's IP, but in context, it's understandable that designers are rightly going to be far more defensive about it's replication.

So where to now. It's up to develops to protect the code if the want it to be valued in the same way that design is. This darwinistic conservative neo-right philosophy is the only to stop the "I'm really not appreciated" thoughts from wracking a coders thought process.

Shit huh!