waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Guest]

18 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

I agree.  And also, from Razbam perspective, they could have continued to give support to the models without receiving payment but it's also probably not advisable to keep on working if you know you wont get paid for it.  So yeah, everyone did what was on their best interest.  It's us community that end up damaged by any outcome.

Agree 100%.  Unfortunately, sometimes “s*** happens” without anyone to blame. As much as that sucks for everyone involved

Edited July 26, 2024 by wombat778

[Smashy]

9 hours ago, nilpointer said:

Does anyone else also jump into read these threads and just wonder how civilization hasn't collapsed already? I mean I'm guilty of the odd (private) meltdown because my favourite video game sometimes doesn't work as well as I might like all the time (which is just the nature of software development) .... but you know this really is all such low stakes, imagine for a moment all the other things you can fill your time with while you wait.

I know there are a million other things I'd rather do than pretend I can possibly understand the complexities of a situation without anything like a full picture or a specialization in contract law. Plenty of other aircraft to pass the time or just go and breathe some fresh air and stare at the sky 

Well said.  And threads like these are a good indication of how privileged, fortunate and spoiled we are if this is the biggest thing in life that the collective we can get so angry about.

[Mizzy]

10 hours ago, nilpointer said:

Does anyone else also jump into read these threads and just wonder how civilization hasn't collapsed already? I mean I'm guilty of the odd (private) meltdown because my favourite video game sometimes doesn't work as well as I might like all the time (which is just the nature of software development) .... but you know this really is all such low stakes, imagine for a moment all the other things you can fill your time with while you wait.

I know there are a million other things I'd rather do than pretend I can possibly understand the complexities of a situation without anything like a full picture or a specialization in contract law. Plenty of other aircraft to pass the time or just go and breathe some fresh air and stare at the sky 

WOW, yet another voice of common sense emerges, this is a really well thought out post. Sorry I had to log in and just say well done.

Mizzy

[av8orDave]

10 hours ago, nilpointer said:

Does anyone else also jump into read these threads and just wonder how civilization hasn't collapsed already? I mean I'm guilty of the odd (private) meltdown because my favourite video game sometimes doesn't work as well as I might like all the time (which is just the nature of software development) .... but you know this really is all such low stakes, imagine for a moment all the other things you can fill your time with while you wait.

I know there are a million other things I'd rather do than pretend I can possibly understand the complexities of a situation without anything like a full picture or a specialization in contract law. Plenty of other aircraft to pass the time or just go and breathe some fresh air and stare at the sky 

While I agree with you, you may be missing that two things can be true at the same time. I can, and do, do a million other things, breathe fresh air, indulge in other hobbies, go to work, enjoy my family, AND take the 30 seconds required to pretend to understand the complexities and have meltdown over a video game. 

 

[RafaPolit]

9 hours ago, krazyj said:

so by your analogy, guy steals your car, he claims he didnt so he should just continue to drive it until it gets settled in court ? 
companies have a responsibility to reduce their liability so if there is an outstanding or a contract breach, they have various means like withholding payment ect to reduce the liability to said company. If you continue to allow the breach to happen the court could rule that by doing so, you have accepted the breach and thus cant reduce damages and/or liability 

Well, you are assuming someone stole a car.  If that is the case, yes.  Have you seen discussions of ED withholding payment from HB as well? Were they also "stealing the car"?

That's why this is so complex and why I have avoided entering the realm of speculations.  Here you are deciding to believe that Razbam did indeed breach such contract or EDs IP.  That's very much one possibility, sure.  There is also the option that ED just decided not to pay them their due money, as has happened before (it's not like there isn't any previous precedent on this particular field).  So, for me, giving all the benefit of the doubt to ED when this is not the first time such problems have been reported is much more difficult to do.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, RafaPolit said:

Well, you are assuming someone stole a car.  If that is the case, yes.  Have you seen discussions of ED withholding payment from HB as well? Were they also "stealing the car"?

That's why this is so complex and why I have avoided entering the realm of speculations.  Here you are deciding to believe that Razbam did indeed breach such contract or EDs IP.  That's very much one possibility, sure.  There is also the option that ED just decided not to pay them their due money, as has happened before (it's not like there isn't any previous precedent on this particular field).  So, for me, giving all the benefit of the doubt to ED when this is not the first time such problems have been reported is much more difficult to do.

One thing we might all be able to agree on is that it's good to see there is no indication in either party's public statements that there is any dispute about sales data, nor is there any dispute mentioned regarding whether Razbam is ultimately owed the money ED are currently withholding. We may not know what's being said privately, but at least we can hope one potentially thorny and time-consuming aspect of this may not be in dispute. Perhaps that means that once the IP issue is settled it will be simple math to take the applicable number for that from whatever Razbam is owed, and there will be clarity on who ultimately owes who what, someone can cut a check and we can move on a little quicker than we otherwise might.

[krazyj]

3 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

Well, you are assuming someone stole a car.  If that is the case, yes.  Have you seen discussions of ED withholding payment from HB as well? Were they also "stealing the car"?

That's why this is so complex and why I have avoided entering the realm of speculations.  Here you are deciding to believe that Razbam did indeed breach such contract or EDs IP.  That's very much one possibility, sure.  There is also the option that ED just decided not to pay them their due money, as has happened before (it's not like there isn't any previous precedent on this particular field).  So, for me, giving all the benefit of the doubt to ED when this is not the first time such problems have been reported is much more difficult to do.

you assumed I was referring to RB and ED but was talking in general terms, However, Im confident, that ED would not withhold funds to any 3rd party dev without good reason and proper legal grounds. the ramifications of this would not be beneficial to anyone. I have not seen anything about with holding money from ( assuming you mean HeatBlur ) but again, if the company ( in this case ED ) believes there is a breach of agreement, this is normal practice. these things will then be resolved in court. 
In any case, the consumer, is completely without any influence in regards to the outcome and to suggest that ED should weaken their own position by allowing the continued breach of contract is a bit silly. 

 

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, krazyj said:

you assumed I was referring to RB and ED but was talking in general terms, However, Im confident, that ED would not withhold funds to any 3rd party dev without good reason and proper legal grounds. the ramifications of this would not be beneficial to anyone. I have not seen anything about with holding money from ( assuming you mean HeatBlur ) but again, if the company ( in this case ED ) believes there is a breach of agreement, this is normal practice. these things will then be resolved in court. 
In any case, the consumer, is completely without any influence in regards to the outcome and to suggest that ED should weaken their own position by allowing the continued breach of contract is a bit silly. 

 

This is assuming that ED's claim is true. Not saying I have any evidence it is a false. But what we know as facts from the statements is that ED has not paid Razbam. And that ED claims a breach of IP as their cause. As far as I know nothing has been proven as far as the breach of IP, just the claims. Again, if ED knew about this IP issue why would they release the module? If the IP issue came up after the release why didn't they pay RB their share of the F-15E sales before the supposed IP issue? Just seems odd that it happened in a way where ED was able to sell the module and receive revenue from it, while not having to pay RB what they should for it. And there's been nothing stated about RB benefitting in any way from this supposed IP issue.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

This is assuming that ED's claim is true. Not saying I have any evidence it is a false. But what we know as facts from the statements is that ED has not paid Razbam. And that ED claims a breach of IP as their cause. As far as I know nothing has been proven as far as the breach of IP, just the claims. Again, if ED knew about this IP issue why would they release the module? If the IP issue came up after the release why didn't they pay RB their share of the F-15E sales before the supposed IP issue? Just seems odd that it happened in a way where ED was able to sell the module and receive revenue from it, while not having to pay RB what they should for it. And there's been nothing stated about RB benefitting in any way from this supposed IP issue.

Razbam not receiving payments seems to be an agreed fact, whereas the IP breach is disputed, so I’m with you that far. Whenever the IP breach happened, it seems like there was already a contract to release the F-15E. I know I’ll sound like an a*s as I speak Archaic accountant here, but bear with me…

ED releasing the module as planned means Razbam are still earning revenue too, even if they aren’t receiving the cash flow yet. As far as we know there is no dispute that Razbam are entitled to that revenue, and they should have it listed as an asset in their balance sheet and profit and loss statement. ED haven’t disputed that Razbam are owed that money. and ED’s financial statements would list the money withheld as a liability. Both Razbam’s and ED’s financial statements should note the outstanding dispute, and the possibility that Razbam will be found to owe ED for that. This means that once the IP dispute is resolved, any money Razbam is found to owe for that is subtracted from the amount ED has withheld, any balance is paid to Razbam and both parties are financially where they would have been (at least in theory) had Razbam’s payments not been withheld, save for any adjustment due for the IP breach.

Alternatively, if there was a contract to release the mudhen and ED had refused to, they may well have been liable for loss of sales and more. Any liability for this comes straight out of ED’s pocket because there was no sales income to deduct it from. The amount owed for loss of sales would be theoretical, so maybe Razbam lose too if the final amount doesn’t match what they would actually have earned. Legal situation gets messier, and one side or both are substantially worse off, and that’s before we talk about the alleged IP breach.

As far as any gain that Razbam might have made from the alleged IP breach is something I doubt we’ll ever hear officially. That’s because, AFAIK, any gain (or lack thereof) would not ordinarily be a factor in whether a party is liable; if they are liable, then any gain might factor into the final number. So unless we get a detailed rundown of how much ED receives (if they are successful) I doubt they’ll fill us in on any alleged ill-gotten gains.

[happyhappy]

in either case···

I want to know what will happen to this half-baked F-15E in the future.

The ED's responsibility remains the same.

Because they take the money from the users first.

Steam doesn't offer refund.

 

 

[kdfw]

there ain't going to be any courtroom battles here,  look where these 2 companies are located, not different countries, different continents!  how can any judgement get enforced? by the world police?  fantasy talk.

i still have not seen any rb product that supposedly violated ed ip on the market or mentioned anywhere on the web.  if there's no tangible product and nothing ever went on sale, then there is no economic damage and all this is ed overplaying its hand in some dispute and ruining the ed brand.  an ego thing, poor cashflow management, and/or just insanity. 

 

Edited July 27, 2024 by kdfw

[Guest]

4 hours ago, kdfw said:

I still have not seen any rb product that supposedly violated ed ip on the market or mentioned anywhere on the web.  if there's no tangible product and nothing ever went on sale, then there is no economic damage and all this is ed overplaying its hand in some dispute and ruining the ed brand.  an ego thing, poor cashflow management, and/or just insanity.

Why would you assume that RB’s offending product would be publicly available?  Why couldn’t it be something bespoke in development for a customer, or government, for example? If so, you would likely never hear about it publicly.  Making an assumption that in order for a product to be “tangible” or cause “economic damage” it must be a product available to the general public seems odd.  Especially given my understanding that Razbam has government contracts (Super Tucano) 

Edited July 27, 2024 by wombat778

[Oban]

5 hours ago, kdfw said:

there ain't going to be any courtroom battles here,  look where these 2 companies are located, not different countries, different continents!  how can any judgement get enforced? by the world police?  fantasy talk.

i still have not seen any rb product that supposedly violated ed ip on the market or mentioned anywhere on the web.  if there's no tangible product and nothing ever went on sale, then there is no economic damage and all this is ed overplaying its hand in some dispute and ruining the ed brand.  an ego thing, poor cashflow management, and/or just insanity. 

 

 

That's not how IP works.

[WipeUout]

2 hours ago, Oban said:

there ain't going to be any courtroom battles here,  look where these 2 companies are located, not different countries, different continents!  how can any judgement get enforced? by the world police?  fantasy talk.

Contracts between parties in different jurisdiction specify what law applies in case of litigation.  Common is UK law and Switzerland because they have a well developed sets of laws.

2 hours ago, Oban said:

i still have not seen any rb product that supposedly violated ed ip on the market or mentioned anywhere on the web.  if there's no tangible product and nothing ever went on sale, then there is no economic damage and all this is ed overplaying its hand in some dispute and ruining the ed brand.  an ego thing, poor cashflow management, and/or just insanity.

One party said there was a breach of IP, read official statement again.  The fact that the evidence is not readily available publicly does not make it intangible, they don't have to display any of it in the public space.  

[SkateZilla]

13 hours ago, kdfw said:

there ain't going to be any courtroom battles here,  look where these 2 companies are located, not different countries, different continents!  how can any judgement get enforced? by the world police?  fantasy talk.

i still have not seen any rb product that supposedly violated ed ip on the market or mentioned anywhere on the web.  if there's no tangible product and nothing ever went on sale, then there is no economic damage and all this is ed overplaying its hand in some dispute and ruining the ed brand.  an ego thing, poor cashflow management, and/or just insanity. 

 

 

That's not how IP works, just making a legal agreement w/ another party using something that don't belong to you to secure or support that agreement is all you gotta do.

There was plenty of "Talk" regarding the alleged breach on other social groups/sites, I'm not getting into it here, because it's not going to be confirmed nor denied by anyone, so it's all just hanger talk.

[kdfw]

5 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

That's not how IP works, just making a legal agreement w/ another party using something that don't belong to you to secure or support that agreement is all you gotta do.

 

and so an allegation was made of ip 'violation' and ed went nuclear--no more payment to the vendor--and the outcome should've been obvious.  by not paying the supplier a token/reasonable maintenance payment for products that require perpetual patching (patching due to core platform changes and bug fixes) and by not paying for the popular f15 module would result in the vendor terminating ongoing support (who da f wants to work for free?).

simply, ed should've separated the 'ip issue' from the ongoing product maintenance requirements in dealing with rb.  but instead it overplayed its hand and damaged its own brand and reputation.  

[Horns]

20 minutes ago, kdfw said:

and so an allegation was made of ip 'violation' and ed went nuclear--no more payment to the vendor--and the outcome should've been obvious.  by not paying the supplier a token/reasonable maintenance payment for products that require perpetual patching (patching due to core platform changes and bug fixes) and by not paying for the popular f15 module would result in the vendor terminating ongoing support (who da f wants to work for free?).

simply, ed should've separated the 'ip issue' from the ongoing product maintenance requirements in dealing with rb.  but instead it overplayed its hand and damaged its own brand and reputation.  

Developers don't ever get paid to maintain their modules, they do it so that they can continue to sell them with the latest features in DCS.

Whatever you might think of or call ED's actions they are standard business practice.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kdfw said:

simply, ed should've separated the 'ip issue' from the ongoing product maintenance requirements in dealing with rb.  but instead it overplayed its hand and damaged its own brand and reputation.  

That seems to me to be an extremely bold claim for someone who doesn’t know what IP issue is or even what product(s) it relates to, has not reviewed or received any description of the applicable contract(s), doesn’t know what financial arrangements are involved with ongoing module maintenance, and have little or no information about the facts of the situation.  

[Oban]

12 hours ago, WipeUout said:

Contracts between parties in different jurisdiction specify what law applies in case of litigation.  Common is UK law and Switzerland because they have a well developed sets of laws.

One party said there was a breach of IP, read official statement again.  The fact that the evidence is not readily available publicly does not make it intangible, they don't have to display any of it in the public space.  

Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of those quotes are from me..

I said that's noy how IP works

[WipeUout]

8 hours ago, Oban said:

I said that's noy how IP works

You're right, "that's noy" what you said. 

 

[SkateZilla]

15 hours ago, kdfw said:

and so an allegation was made of ip 'violation' and ed went nuclear--no more payment to the vendor--and the outcome should've been obvious.  by not paying the supplier a token/reasonable maintenance payment for products that require perpetual patching (patching due to core platform changes and bug fixes) and by not paying for the popular f15 module would result in the vendor terminating ongoing support (who da f wants to work for free?).

simply, ed should've separated the 'ip issue' from the ongoing product maintenance requirements in dealing with rb.  but instead it overplayed its hand and damaged its own brand and reputation.  

We don't know the 3rd Party's contract terms, halting payments for contract violations until violation is resolved/corrected may or may not be directly stipulated in their contract.

This is where "Heresy" comes in, 2 of the 3 camps are just assuming based on the heresy, one camp assumes another is making stuff up. there's no public disclosure of evidence either way. One party was said to have violated the IP, the other is saying they didn't, due to the legal standing of the dispute, ED has not made their evidence public, the only thing consumers can do is hope for a full resolution and all vital members of the RB team returning to work.

[Nightdare]

15 hours ago, kdfw said:

and so an allegation was made of ip 'violation' and ed went nuclear--no more payment to the vendor--and the outcome should've been obvious.  by not paying the supplier a token/reasonable maintenance payment for products that require perpetual patching (patching due to core platform changes and bug fixes) and by not paying for the popular f15 module would result in the vendor terminating ongoing support (who da f wants to work for free?).

simply, ed should've separated the 'ip issue' from the ongoing product maintenance requirements in dealing with rb.  but instead it overplayed its hand and damaged its own brand and reputation.  

 

So,... you keep paying your employee while he's stealing your products?

"Meh, just separate his work from what he's taking home with him, let's just ask him nicely to return that stuff,... Oh? He said No? Well, just keep paying him, it'll come back eventually"

[PhantomHans]

23 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

So,... you keep paying your employee while he's stealing your products?

"Meh, just separate his work from what he's taking home with him, let's just ask him nicely to return that stuff,... Oh? He said No? Well, just keep paying him, it'll come back eventually"

That's so much like my girlfriend,  she has a real "spaghetti bowl" view of the world.  Everything is connected and related, even if it really isn't related at all.  If you view everything as tangled and jumbled like that, then suddenly stealing your employee's car, selling it, and keeping the cash makes sense to get back at them for stealing...Or forcing them to show up and work but not paying them, makes sense, even if it's not legal.  Her mom and sister are the same way.  So is my mom and my sister.

But her dad and my dad are logical and tend to keep things separate unless they're actually related or connected.

Weird...Huh...Anyway.

 

 

I have to agree with the other poster.

Pay them for their work as agreed in the contract.  If they did an IP violation,  sue them for it.  If they stop making patches or delivering updates because you sued them, now stop paying and accuse them of breach of contract as well as IP theft.

What's going on right now isn't right.

[freehand]

Who's car got stolen ? not been here for while. 

Edited July 29, 2024 by freehand

[Nightdare]

1 hour ago, PhantomHans said:

What's going on right now isn't right.

 

Paying someone that is stealing from you isn't just wrong, it's actually downright stupid