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

[Nightdare]

5 minutes ago, some1 said:

Pay from what? As far as we know, ED already has this money, and more.

 

Yes and they will not be in trouble unless they spend this money

 

5 minutes ago, some1 said:

Then why are they withholding  more money than they demand? To prove a point? To show who's boss? To kill other company? Because their accountant forgot bank logins?

 

To make RB stop damaging ED

is it so hard to understand that maybe sometimes you have to use rather heavy handed actions to make people stop doing bad things?

 

Unless you think DCS getting destroyed is a good thing

 

5 minutes ago, some1 said:

At this point I certainly don't want to buy anything more from a company, that likes to hold someone else's money for "ransom". 

You rather have a 3rd party destroy a company and ruin the business of other 3rd parties for its own benefit?

[some1]

4 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

Unless you think DCS getting destroyed is a good thing

Well, some people here certainly think that Razbam getting destroyed is a good thing. Just read the last page or two.

Although I'm not sure what kind of destruction Razbam was raging on DCS and other 3rd parties before the thing went public. Care to elaborate? Only official sources please.

Edited January 17 by some1

[Nightdare]

13 minutes ago, some1 said:

Well, some people here certainly think that Razbam getting destroyed is a good thing. Just read the last page or two.

 

If ED is in the right, I'd wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments

As things appear now, ED seems to be more believable than RB

 

13 minutes ago, some1 said:

Although I'm not sure what kind of destruction Razbam was raging on DCS and other 3rd parties before the thing went public.

 

Breach of contract

Abusing ED property for own gain

Not upholding contracts is destructive to all business in the same line (i.e. not holding one 3rd party to stipulations may set a precedent for others to not do so either)

ED has a duty to protect its IP, or the risk to lose their IP protection may become a real thing, once their software/code becomes public property, then we truly are talking about the destruction of DCS

 

13 minutes ago, some1 said:

Care to elaborate? Only official sources please.

Go to page 1, it's right there

[some1]

22 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Go to page 1, it's right there

I see "breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims." 

The rest you're just making up on your own to fit your narrative. In this regard you're no different than Razbam fanboys.
 

[Horns]

29 minutes ago, some1 said:

I see "breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims." 

The rest you're just making up on your own to fit your narrative. In this regard you're no different than Razbam fanboys.
 

It's pretty obvious that an IP breach for a company whose business is based on IP threatens that business' livelihood. The quote answered your question.

[some1]

Seems to me that these "heavy handed actions" (as Nightdare put it) on ED side has also caused a lot of damage to DCS brand. So what's next, is ED going to sue themselves, or just withhold payments to some of their employees?

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

To make RB stop damaging ED

Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money? Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak, or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.

Edited January 17 by some1

[Oban]

8 minutes ago, some1 said:

Seems to me that these "heavy handed actions" (as Nightdare put it) on ED side has also caused a lot of damage to DCS brand. So what's next, is ED going to sue themselves, or just withhold payments to some of their employees?

Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money? Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak, or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.

For sure it has, however would you have suggested ED done nothing and allow their Property to be abused? You don't understand how important the protection of software is, you think ED are the only ones to have ever done this?

You're looking at this from an unhappy customer POV who will lose $80, they're looking at it from a business perspective where they have a multi million dollar corporation to protect.

The chasm is so vast, and yet you're thinking small.

I have been in a company where a client refused to pay for a service provided, 6 figures of non payment, which was part of a much larger contract, the choice was to continue with the service for the much bigger picture, or terminate the service losing 7 figures annually...The service that the client was billed for was misappropriation of my company assets, against the terms and conditions, we found out they were using our security teams to move other non related company personnel in and arround a hostile environment...and then billing them more than they were being billed.   In other words, stealing our assets to use for their own personal use, and making money from it.

My point? If you breach terms and conditions, and try to cut out the Middle man, you better make sure that if/when you're caught, you have a rock solid reason as to why, and be prepared for the legal repercussions if it goes down that road.

[Mizzy]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

Everyone take a deep breath and relax, none of this is helping anything. I really want to keep this open for venting but please try and not get carried away.

I have calmed down now 

[Nightdare]

15 minutes ago, some1 said:

Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money?

 

To save an ENTIRE company and the interests of its customers and 3rd party incomes

The value of RB is nowhere near the value of all the former

They are not withholding more money, they are withholding everything RB is due to make them stop

15 minutes ago, some1 said:

Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak

Or still owes ED for monetary damages

 

If neither, then this dispute would be over

 

15 minutes ago, some1 said:

or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.

If RB is still breaching contract, then what ED is doing is very, very much ethical because RB is unethical in abusing another company's property

Or is that to difficult to comprehend?

 

I'll point this out again: do you keep paying your employee if you find he's stealing resources from you, to make money for himself as/with a competitor?

Or do you freeze any of his assets that are in your possession and give him the chance to return the resources and reimburse you for unfair competition?

[Mizzy]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

Well, some people here certainly think that Razbam getting destroyed is a good thing. Just read the last page or two.

Although I'm not sure what kind of destruction Razbam was raging on DCS and other 3rd parties before the thing went public. Care to elaborate? Only official sources please.

You obviously don't know the history of Razbam in other platforms. Also you assume way too much about the alleged non payment leverage issue when Razbam muddied the waters and detracted from the 'real' reason why payment was withheld. If anything Razbam have 'destroyed' themselves by disgraceful pre action protocol behaviour. Using their Discord as a ED battering ram without discrimination. Thank God it's only a handful of people causing as much trouble as possible, but there are good reasons why some of us would like to see the back of Zambrano and it dates back long before DCS !!

Mizzy

[bfr]

36 minutes ago, some1 said:

Seems to me that these "heavy handed actions" (as Nightdare put it) on ED side has also caused a lot of damage to DCS brand. So what's next, is ED going to sue themselves, or just withhold payments to some of their employees?

Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money? Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak, or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.

Yes i'm sure ED didn't take the decision lightly considering it was going to cause a stink and also potentially jeopardises several modules (one of which being very new and popular).

And who says that ED are seeking to fine Razbam?  Reading ED's take then one interpretation might be that they're actually OK on some level with what Razbam were planning to do with ED's IP BUT only provided ED are properly compensated for it for their part.  If that is the case then obviously no agreement to move forward has yet been reached.  We also don't know (again, if my interpretation is correct) whether Razbam had already done something commercial with said IP or were just planning to do it.

[Ignition]

12 hours ago, Davee said:

All I can say is that with the F15C announced today, my fix for the F15E is in place. Excellent!

 

Why?, just by the name?

Those are 2 completely different aircraft.

[bfr]

1 minute ago, Ignition said:

Why?, just by the name?

Those are 2 completely different aircraft.

I guess it depends if he bought the F-15E because it was an F-15E or because it was the closest high fidelity match they could get for an F-15C. I was personally always more interested in the E but different folk have different tastes and plenty would've preferred a C (or both) when the E came out.

[Horns]

3 hours ago, some1 said:

Pay from what? As far as we know, ED already has this money, and more.

When did we get told that? Official sources please.

Edit: Methinks you shouldn't accuse others of running narratives.

Edited January 17 by Horns
Read back down page

[some1]

36 minutes ago, Oban said:

The chasm is so vast, and yet you're thinking small.

I'd say the biggest chasm is created by the amount of things we do not know about the current situation.

Do you guys really know the nature of that alleged contractual breach, the implications it caused, amount of lost income etc? Because you both sound like it was something that almost brought down DCS, outright stealing and doing intentional hostile actions for monetary gain that required (and still requires) the most drastic actions possible.

So I hope you have good sources of that allegations, not just pulling all this from thin air and that single vague sentence from Mr Nick Grey announcement.

30 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

If RB is still breaching contract, then what ED is doing is very, very much ethical because RB is unethical in abusing another company's property

And if not? That is my main question.

[afnav130]

4 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

Who says RB is receiving any income from DCS sales at this moment?

It was the only module RB could use as leverage in return, but I do not believe it was stated that payment was suspended solely on the F-15E

It could also be the case that due to payment method, that the F-15 indeed was the only one where money transfers to RB could be blocked

or maybe indeed ED only used payment from this module as leverage and 'good faith' did not block other RB sales

Don't know, or either care

since it most certainly is not, as you call it "asinine"

In ED's eyes, RB is in breach, will not C&D voluntarily , therefore ED grabbed the best thing to force the issue, it's as simple as that.

 

 

Keeping RB's money for what has been sold is really bad form. Especially when you keep selling it. Any module sold on the storefront, ED gets the money first. I guess what we don't know is RB getting any money from sales of other modules? My guess is the SA map is getting paid but they aren't really RB at the end of the day. 

Since there is no updates to the other RB modules, I have to assume ED shut the tap completely off. Yet they still sell the modules. That is the definition of asinine. Can keep going around in circles but I know you would be beyond pissed if you were working on module A, but they had a problem with module B and so they stopped paying you what you were owed due to sales for module A. And you saw them keep selling module A. 

[Gunnar81]

17 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Keeping RB's money for what has been sold is really bad form. Especially when you keep selling it. Any module sold on the storefront, ED gets the money first. I guess what we don't know is RB getting any money from sales of other modules? My guess is the SA map is getting paid but they aren't really RB at the end of the day. 

Since there is no updates to the other RB modules, I have to assume ED shut the tap completely off. Yet they still sell the modules. That is the definition of asinine. Can keep going around in circles but I know you would be beyond pissed if you were working on module A, but they had a problem with module B and so they stopped paying you what you were owed due to sales for module A. And you saw them keep selling module A. 

Thats not the way business contracts and subcontracting works, sorry. The fine print most likely has ED obligated to keep selling until a resolution changes the contract outline.

The world isnt as black and white as how you have it laid out above..

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 minute ago, Gunnar81 said:

Thats not the way business contracts and subcontracting works, sorry. The fine print most likely has ED obligated to keep selling until a resolution changes the contract outline.

The world isnt as black and white as how you have it laid out above..

This has been spelled out multiple times.

And yet, it keeps getting forgotten by folks.

[Mike Force Team]

RZ must not be too worried about the owed money. This is likely due to having other income streams for doing work for other businesses besides DCS.

ED is not worried too much because they are the only flight simulator provider of its kind.

[bfr]

10 minutes ago, Gunnar81 said:

Thats not the way business contracts and subcontracting works, sorry. The fine print most likely has ED obligated to keep selling until a resolution changes the contract outline.

The world isnt as black and white as how you have it laid out above..

Also quite likely the people working on modules A and B are likely the same.  So if the income not forthcoming from your work on A is significant and any money trickling down from work on B isn't enough to pay your bills, you're probably going to go off and do something else and thus both A and B grind to a halt.

[Nightdare]

45 minutes ago, some1 said:

And if not? That is my main question.

 

Then ED has got 1 hell of a problem on their hands, several times worse than now

 

35 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Keeping RB's money for what has been sold is really bad form

 

Keeping a contractor's money while they are stealing your property is what you would do as well

Edited January 17 by Nightdare

[afnav130]

4 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

Then ED has got 1 hell of a problem on their hands, several times worse than now

 

 

Keeping a contractor's money while they are stealing your property is what you would do as well

Nope as I stated cease and desist on the issue, let the other things continue as usual. Nothing wrong in saying you can keep working on X but you cannot in any circumstance work on XX. 

 

Pretty damn simple. Instead...nuclear and KABOOOM! To me, reading the tea leaves ED told RB to stop work on XX. RB said no we are within are rights to do this. ED said, no you are not. A bitch fest ensues and ED takes the nuclear option. There you have it. 

Edited January 17 by afnav130

[Nightdare]

1 minute ago, afnav130 said:

Nope as I stated cease and desist on the issue, let the other things continue as usual. Nothing wrong in saying you can keep working on X but you cannot in any circumstance work on XX. 

 

And you think ED didn't send C&D letters? Trust me, not giving the aggrieving party a chance to set things straight prior to doesn't go over too well in a court

 

1 minute ago, afnav130 said:

me, reading the tea leaves

 

That is clear by now

 

1 minute ago, afnav130 said:

 

ED told RB to stop work on XX. RB said no we are within are rights to do this. ED said, no you are not. A bitch fest ensues and ED takes the nuclear option. There you have it. 

 

 

All you did was see the final escalation where we became aware of the dispute, nowhere do you have any clear timeline how long this issue festered

 

But even if that were as you claim, RB would be setting up a court case the moment money stopped rolling in, because not paying someone for work done without justification is a crime

it would be ED that were in breach of contract

 

Stop reading tea leaves, start using logic deduction

[Oban]

2 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Nope as I stated cease and desist on the issue, let the other things continue as usual. Nothing wrong in saying you can keep working on X but you cannot in any circumstance work on XX. 

 

Pretty damn simple. Instead...nuclear and KABOOOM! To me, reading the tea leaves ED told RB to stop work on XX. RB said no we are within are rights to do this. ED said, no you are not. A bitch fest ensues and ED takes the nuclear option. There you have it. 

ED didn't go direct to the Nuclear option...

What you, or I's opinions on this are irrelevant, it's not our business that's at stake here, and I know for a fact, this situation isn't unique to ED/RB either, it happens a lot.

Big companies/coprorations couldn't care less about a smaller companies employees if that company steps out of line, where contracts have been breached, licences abused etc etc etc.
Why should they?

[afnav130]

35 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

And you think ED didn't send C&D letters? Trust me, not giving the aggrieving party a chance to set things straight prior to doesn't go over too well in a court

 

 

That is clear by now

 

 

 

All you did was see the final escalation where we became aware of the dispute, nowhere do you have any clear timeline how long this issue festered

 

But even if that were as you claim, RB would be setting up a court case the moment money stopped rolling in, because not paying someone for work done without justification is a crime

it would be ED that were in breach of contract

 

Stop reading tea leaves, start using logic deduction

Logic deduction is the same as tea leaves. Just a different flavor of description. Sure, if RB gave ED the finger, then you get the courts involved. Even then the scope would be fairly narrow, only pertaining to module XX and not X.  Most people, if they receive an official C&D letter, do exactly that. Most don't go down that road that only hurts them. 

I know for a fact that RB wasn't getting paid for the E model for at least 5 months before the devs stopped working on it. Another couple months and this will be a year since the updates stopped.