Aapje

Even if RB violated a contract, that doesn't mean that the damages are greater than money that RB is supposed to get. For example, imagine that you broke a laptop charger at work and you are liable to pay the cost. Then it would not be reasonable for the company to dock you many thousands of dollars/euros, when the charger costs way less than that. Ah, so you KNOW* things. * = making stuff up But RB seems to have signed the settlement agreement, so you are again saying things that go against the facts. Except that is also not how it works, except in your mind.

What logic is this? If you worked for a company and they stopped paying, would you keep working without pay until you lost your house, or would you try to find another job to prevent you from losing your house? And you ignore that there is supposed to be a settlement, that supposedly says that RB would work on the modules, but for some reason that agreement is no longer being accepted as valid. Yet we do not know all terms of the contract and to what extent each side followed it, so it is impossible to judge it on fact, although clearly, many people think that their bias is as good as facts. Pretending that you speak for others is another tick on the bingo card for someone who writes irrational things.

By leaving out the fact that Razbam stopped development due to ED no longer paying them, you are being extremely misleading. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all anyway, since what would Razbam even be able to gain by blackmailing ED? It makes no sense. Do you really think that trying to deceive people is somehow helping your cause? And no, just because you write Factual Truth in bold and underlined, does not magically make that true. It just makes you seem like a crazy homeless person that thinks that the key to having their beliefs accepted is by putting it on a very big sign, rather than it actually making any sense.

Speculation presented as fact. Apparently they did sign a settlement agreement, so this is a lie. Very misleading statement given that ED doesn't seem to have paid Razbam, while you are insinuating that they did get the money and owe something in return. Hard to imagine a less deceiving way to write this. Again speculation. We don't know the contents of the contract. Given that Razbam have explicitly said that they will not do this, it seems very irresponsible to claim that this is fact. So there doesn't seem to be any factual truth to your entire post. It is just one big heap of misinformation.

Yet allegedly you've written more on Discord than you have shared here: So is that indeed a message that you wrote and if so, why can you explicitly state on Discord that the agreement is "not being implemented right now," but are not willing to write it here?

We are acting in good faith on the agreement, yes. Sorry, in my head, we shouldn't have to say that, but I understand why you all need to hear it. This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith. For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled. So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

This is disturbing in a bunch of ways. To start with, why was the existence of this agreement and the parts of the agreement that impact customers, even put under a strict confidentiality requirement? Customers have been asking for clarity about the situation and you could have given them this information, but apparently there was a conscious decision to keep customers in the dark for over half a year. Why? I have trouble coming up with any other reason than a lack of confidence in one owns ability to keep the agreement, because any company that was confident that they are doing everything in their power to do the customer right would surely want to tell the customers about the settlement, right? But perhaps there is a legitimate reason that I cannot come up with. Note that I'm not talking about the parts of the agreement that cover payments or other stuff that is between Razbam and ED, but merely about the very existence of an agreement and the plans for the modules. The second disturbing part is that you still seem to hide information from us. You never explicitly state that the agreement is in jeopardy. I'm not allowed to post the alleged statement by Razbam's legal council, yet at every opportunity you seem to minimize the information you share, rather than inform customers to the best of your ability. In this case you imply that the settlement is in jeopardy, but why can't you just state it clearly, so we can discuss it, rather than risk getting our posts removed due to 'speculation'? Thirdly, if the agreement is indeed not being upheld at the moment, this speaks to a level of incompetence that is very worrying. I can see people making mistakes in the daily grind of things where people may not think things through fully, but this agreement was surely made with a full understanding of the gravity of the situation, so one would expect every i to be dotted and every t to be crossed. Clear and unambiguous statements in the settlement agreement who has to do what and when. And any fuss over the settlement should then result in the legal teams of both sides being able to quickly determine who is not holding up their end of the deal and how it is to be rectified. And both companies would then get told by their legal team what they need to do to avoid legal repercussions for not following the settlement contract.

The most ridiculous part to me is how they cut cost on the power delivery, so you are still at risk of having the connector melt.

Not allowed here.

At some point a few tech sites seem to have decided that Kepler_L2 has secret information, even though his real talent is making stuff up and then presenting it as fact. He was caught doing so on the AnandTech forums. Note that this is a general failing of the media, they often get enamored by 'experts' without actually properly vetting those people for actual expertise, and then it is very hard or impossible to get them to change their mind, even if their 'expert' is wrong a lot of the time.

I think that it also matters what competition they have. For example, if you want an F-16 ICP panel, then it seems that they don't have any competition anywhere near their price level for a finished product.

According to the allegedly leaked letter of demand, Razbam is not allowed to talk about this. How do you know that those chats/documents exist and that they contain the exact things that you expect them to say? You are making lots of assumptions here, and there is a pretty good chance that you are wrong about certain things. The allegedly leaked letter of demand states that ED is withholding agreed payments, but that they are allowed to do so, under the terms of a contract that we don't have. We have no way to evaluate whether ED actually has the right to withhold payment and for what amount, and what amount they actually withheld. If you look at one of my previous posts, then you can see that my argument is that ED could have waited with the withholding/fine until both parties had agreed on what fine was reasonable. And they could have chosen to accept a reduction to the fine to a level that is acceptable to Ron, which is clearly not the case now. Even if ED is technically right that Razbam violated the contract, which may or may not be true, then there still is such a thing as handling things in a way that reduces the chance of disruptions and increases the chance of a good resolution for all parties. Exactly, that is my point. I strongly suspect that he didn't think through the consequences of his actions, and thought that Ron would accept the fine and things would continue as before, and there would be no impact to DCS customers. It is hard to imagine that he would have made the same choices if he knew the consequences, but those consequences were not at all unlikely.

It depends a lot on your perspective. If you compare selling a full-featured module vs a partially built one, then the former is obviously more attractive. However, making a full-featured module takes a lot more time than making a partial module, so waiting with sales until the module is done, means that the developers have to wait a lot longer before they earn money (and they may even run out of money needed to keep developing). If you compare selling a partial module without promises of future improvements, versus selling a partial module with such promises, then I think that the EA-label does add value.

I never actually said that they did make something else for MCS. I said that if they did, ED could have chosen to withhold those payments and not the DCS payments. You misread what I wrote. That is indeed what is written in the allegedly leaked letter of demand, but you left out that this letter also describes a fine that is to be levied on Razbam (but not the amount). Always funny when people feel the need to publicly announce this. Lots of people exposing the nasty side of their personality in this thread.

But if you look at Ron's behavior, then he clearly doesn't believe that ED is wronged to the extent they claim, or Ron would have acquiesced to the demands. If you want to be objective, you can't look at ED's behavior and then conclude that their beliefs must be right, and then look at Ron behavior and then conclude that his beliefs are wrong.

Your bias is not the truth. I understand that some people have felt betrayed in the past by having Ron abandon two projects for FSX, and now that the DCS modules are getting abandoned, they have the same feelings, and then connect the dots. The problem is that it is not all analogous, because where previously Ron abandoned those two project at his own volition, he now did so because the actions by ED, which in turn are allegedly because of something that Ron did. If we set aside the question of blame for the entire affair, and focus just on the decision to stop further development, then those who want to blame Ron for doing so, have to argue that he somehow has to keep paying his workers without any money coming in. This is obviously irrational, but clearly, a lot of people are just here to rage at Ron, not to look at what reasonable options the various parties actually had and have.

ED could have paid out the money for the DCS modules, and then withheld money from MCS payments (if Razbam gets money from other MCS projects), or could have made a separate claim. ED could also have first gone through the process of mediation or whatever is happening behind the scenes, before collecting on the fine. Depending on the exact details of the situation, ED could also have chosen to forego part of or all of the fine, in favor of a forward-looking resolution that ensures that similar situations won't happen again in the future, where that loss of income of the fine, is offset by having a successful long term relationship between ED & Razbam and not having the PR nightmare that ED suffers from now (and that this thread is a part of). I understand that you are fully on the 'Razbam made them do it'-train, but ED had options. The current choice they made: Maximizes the fine and the chance that ED can collect their fine Maximizes the chance that the conflict over MCS would spill over to the DCS side Maximizes the chance that Razbam would stop supporting the modules Maximizes the chance that there is a long period of customer impact while the conflict is not yet resolved Maximizes the chance that the Razbam-ED relationship ends Increases the chance that customers are impacted and lose trust in third party modules/Razbam/ED, and thereby has negative long term impact on people's willingness to spend Of course you are free to think that they made the best choice and that all those negative outcomes are fully justified by the income that ED gets from the fine. I think that ED most likely cost themselves more money through lost sales than what they gained through the fine. But it's fair to disagree on this. However, when you start denying that ED could have made different decisions, it is not just a valid difference of opinion over whether what ED did was the best move, but simply becomes another way to put all the blame on Razbam, including for decisions that they didn't make, which is simply not fair. What are those reasonable grounds, then? All I see is people simply believing ED, even though ED has supplied absolutely no evidence for their claims. Please spell out how you think that Razbam violated their contract exactly and what evidence you have for that? At the very least, it means that we weren't exactly told the truth when ED told us that MCS and DCS have nothing to do with each other and that we shouldn't concern ourselves with MCS. When drama from the MCS side spills over to the DCS side, then whatever happens on the MCS side becomes relevant to DCS customers. We actually don't know if the alleged breach of contract by Razbam is something that was intentional and requires a (huge) fine to prevent it from repeating. I think that the most likely situation is that Ron made the not very unreasonable assumption that he would be free to sign a contract with the FAE for the development of the Tucano, since ED seems to have been fully aware that he was working on a deal, and that ED would then negotiate their license for MCS separately. If it was merely an innocent mistake, then it seems to me that it could have been resolved amicably by telling Ron off, and also changing the procedures on the part of ED, where they ensure that every contract for a custom plane is first vetted by ED, before it is presented to a military customer. Ultimately, I think that the only good way to conduct business is to be (reasonably) forgiving when employees, subcontractors, etc make mistakes. Demanding to be fully made whole can feel like it is just, but ultimately it destroys trust and thus relationships. Also, based on the very many people I've seen that say that they have or will reduce their spending due this conflict, I think that ED's choices have cost them substantial sums of money in lost sales, and they would probably have been better off to be forgiving to Ron, so the customers wouldn't have noticed. Winning the battle, but losing the war, is not a good outcome for ED.

Only if you look up the definition of apparent: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apparent I chose this phrasing on purpose since it covers the publicly known evidence and is not a falsehood if there is secret evidence. Furthermore, my statement is a statement of opinion, not of fact, and opinions are not subject to defamation law. You fail to understand the difference between evidence and fact. Evidence is generally open to interpretation, and facts are derived from evidence, but the evidence itself is not necessarily fact. Furthermore, I have been very careful to not claim that the evidence is undoctored, usually by adding the word 'alleged', but my opinion is that it is unlikely that this evidence is doctored, given the immense risks to the leaking party if they would doctor evidence, and because the contents of the various leaked documents and conversations lack certain red flags that I would expect in falsified documents. What is a lot more likely, is that the material that was leaked was not chosen to give the best understanding of the situation, but to frame things in the best way for a certain party. But of course we can't know what the contents is of conversations and documents that were not leaked for this reason.

This is simply not true. For example, if I enter into a contract to buy a product, and the seller decides that they don't want to sell it to me for that price (for example, because the price at the wholesaler went up), then legally, I can still demand that they supply the product for that price. The seller cannot simply refund me my money, voiding the contract. There are also situations where the situation cannot even be undone. For instance, if I eat at a restaurant, and then refuse to pay afterwards, the contract can not be undone, because the food is in my stomach and cannot be turned back into fresh ingredients, and the labor of the staff cannot be undone either. And these are just some examples of how you are wrong. Now, I do admire your brazenness, being so confident at making totally wrong statements, but it is exactly this kind of 'you need to believe these total falsehoods because Ron is a bad person who wronged me in the past' reasoning that I object to. Contract law in the EU already doesn't work as you think it does. And neither does Swiss law: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/27/317_321_377/en > A contract is void if its terms are impossible, unlawful or immoral. > However, where the defect pertains only to certain terms of a contract, those terms alone are void unless there is cause to assume that the contract would not have been concluded without them. And more information about the limited circumstances in which a contract becomes void under Swiss law: https://www.vischer.com/en/knowledge/blog/the-essentials-of-swiss-contract-law-rescission-of-contracts-no-9-40193-1-2/ What hopium? I'm not hoping for anything. Why do you guys keep making these silly statements about me that make no sense at all? And again, Ron's past antics are not actually evidence that Ron did certain things in this case. At most they can be evidence that certain things are in character for him. However, I haven't actually seen anyone say that Ron did anything in the past that is similar to what he is accused of now, so ultimately it all seems to boil down to you thinking that Ron is a bad person, and thus believing anything negative about him, regardless of there being a lack of evidence. I constantly keep that in mind and interpret his statements, and the leaks, with the understanding that he would of course frame things to his benefit. Just like ED does. So this is another example of you making false statements. Don't you get tired of writing things that are wrong? What facts? Spell them out, because I constantly see people making all kinds of vague allegations at me, but then they never actually deliver on providing those facts, because they don't exist.

No one is forcing you to engage with me, so if you can't cope with someone calling out your nonsense, you can just ignore my posts. You aren't adding anything useful to the conversation anyway.

One of the complicating factors is that people have different reference points. If pieces of crap like the X-55 are your reference point, then it's not that hard to be impressed. Ultimately, Winwing's hardware quality is decent for the most part, aside from the Ursa Minor issues. You better hope that you don't have a defect or billing issue though, because their customer support is horrid.

Except that it was ED's choice to stop payment for DCS products over a conflict on the MCS side of things. That was ED's choice, at the expense of DCS players. And Razbam did deliver a product in return for those earnings, but it is not surprising that they need more money to keep adding features. So you expect Razbam to work for free? Do you think this is reasonable? If so, please become my personal assistant. I won't pay you for it, of course, but I assume that you are happy to work for free, since that is what you consider reasonable for others.

At which university did you study Swiss law? The 'I make stuff up that suits me' University? Or can you provide the evidence that Swiss law allows this? So what did he do wrong exactly? Please give specifics, not vague waffle about 'violating IP' or such? I understand that EDs words may be enough for people with immense bias, but some people actually look critically at everything. Razbam was allegedly also not paid on time, and I'm not talking about this dispute, but in 2023 before this dispute started. And the reason why I say for no apparent reason is because in the allegedly leaked conversations I don't see people talking about ED refusing to pay for a reason, but rather, using the classic stall techniques like alternating promises for the future, and making excuses, while the other side has to keep begging for an actual payment. Also, threatening me with defamation is a weird move, since you obviously have no idea how defamation law actually works. Fact is that I've been extremely careful with my words, much more that you. This is just a classic bias-justification technique where evidence is discounted for coming from one side, as if one-sided evidence does not have value to a critical mind. And your argument is clearly unprincipled, as you have shown absolutely no issue with just assuming that one-sided claims from the side you favor are correct. Note that ED is consistently dismissing evidence and preventing it to be posted here, by using arguments that are not a lie if the evidence is actually true, which itself suggests that the evidence is actually true, because if the evidence was doctored, then pointing that out would be a very strong argument. Much stronger than the arguments that they are actually using. The reason is that I care about facts, not about justifying my biases, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that, and how Razbam would have breached the contract or infringed on IP. As I've explained before, 'IP infringement' is so vague that there is little that can be said about it, even if we allow conjecture. Because there are simply too many ways in which one infringe on IP. This is even worse for 'breach of contract.' I have tried to discuss that alleged breach of contract based on allegedly leaked information coupled with what I think are reasonable inferences, but that was removed, so... Note that I've not assumed that certain claims by Ron are true, but of course I don't get any credit for that, or even just a recognition that I do the same for both sides. You can make the same kind of argument that "absolutely 99.9% of the time, courts and tribunals would side with the plaintiff and order payment to be made" if Razbam actually violated the contract, to imply that a lack of court case means that Razbam is innocent. So again, that you just use this flawed logic in one direction, shows your bias. You are also completely ignoring the power dynamics at play here. If what was the case? You have proven absolutely nothing, other than that you will believe ED without any actual evidence.

@cfrag Can you please not attribute words to me that I didn't write? I was very confused about your response until I realized that you were quoting someone else, but attributing it to me.