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

[AndyJWest]

I'm still flying the Harrier, while it still works (bar the odd bug etc). And still not buying any further DCS content, while I see how this pans out. I've got the Strike Eagle too, but I just can't seem to find the enthusiasm to fly it for long. 

[draconus]

7 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I've got the Strike Eagle too, but I just can't seem to find the enthusiasm to fly it for long.

Have you already tried this masterpiece?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331710/

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Have you already tried this masterpiece?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331710/

I haven't. Maybe I should, if I can find the necessary motivation.

[Snappy]

On 5/21/2025 at 11:39 PM, Oban said:

You're totally wrong, it's in the hands of the legal system now, rarely known for rapid quick fixes, and this prticular case isn't black and white either.. the Mig 29 will be released before this case is resolved.

Any source for that? I mean for this conflict  being in any kind of active legal proceedings? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

Edited May 25 by Snappy

[Oban]

9 hours ago, Snappy said:

Any source for that? I mean for this conflict  being in any kind of active legal proceedings? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

Plenty.. even the CM's have mentioned its being dealt with by the respective legal teams..

[AndyJWest]

11 minutes ago, Oban said:

Plenty.. even the CM's have mentioned its being dealt with by the respective legal teams..

Being 'dealt with by legal teams' need not necessarily involve active legal proceedings. Very often, the most important part of their job is finding ways to settle a dispute before it comes to court. Court cases are expensive, can run on for years, and can often result in disclosures that neither side in a dispute want to become public. 

[Oban]

16 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Being 'dealt with by legal teams' need not necessarily involve active legal proceedings. Very often, the most important part of their job is finding ways to settle a dispute before it comes to court. Court cases are expensive, can run on for years, and can often result in disclosures that neither side in a dispute want to become public. 

Semantics, for me, when it's in the hands of the legal departments, it's out of either CEO's hands/control, unless one caves before it goes to arbitration. We know lawyers are now invlolved, in my eyes, that's part of the legal processes/proceedings

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, Oban said:

Semantics, for me, when it's in the hands of the legal departments, it's out of either CEO's hands/control, unless one caves before it goes to arbitration. We know lawyers are now invlolved, in my eyes, that's part of the legal processes/proceedings

Negotiations aren't court proceedings. And where did you get the idea that anything is out of the CEO's control? Legal teams advise, they negotiate on their client's behalf. And if things come to court, they act for them. At no point do they 'gain control' of anything. A CEO can always ignore advice, find another legal team, or simply settle the matter without legal assistance. Whether this is likely to be a good idea is likely to be questionable in regard to the ED-RazBam dispute, but it is always an option.

[Oban]

19 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Negotiations aren't court proceedings. And where did you get the idea that anything is out of the CEO's control? Legal teams advise, they negotiate on their client's behalf. And if things come to court, they act for them. At no point do they 'gain control' of anything. A CEO can always ignore advice, find another legal team, or simply settle the matter without legal assistance. Whether this is likely to be a good idea is likely to be questionable in regard to the ED-RazBam dispute, but it is always an option.

Neither CEO in this case has budged and inch .. ergo, it's going down the legal route... there's no idications that its going to resolved with a hand shake and some humble pie being served.

Who mentioned anything about court proceedings anyway? I said it's in the hands of the legal system, lawyers are part of the legal system, they're legal representatives for each company, they're billing their clients, in my eyes, that's very much a legal system and as I've said, neither side is willing to budge, or come up with a compromise...

There's more chance of Peace in Ukraine coming before a resolution here. 

[AndyJWest]

26 minutes ago, Oban said:

Neither CEO in this case has budged and inch .. ergo, it's going down the legal route... there's no idications that its going to resolved with a hand shake and some humble pie being served.

Who mentioned anything about court proceedings anyway? I said it's in the hands of the legal system, lawyers are part of the legal system, they're legal representatives for each company, they're billing their clients, in my eyes, that's very much a legal system and as I've said, neither side is willing to budge, or come up with a compromise...

There's more chance of Peace in Ukraine coming before a resolution here. 

If you are going to redefine words on the fly, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Not that it has much point anyway, since you clearly aren't in a position to tell us anything about how negotiations may be going. 

[Oban]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

If you are going to redefine words on the fly, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Not that it has much point anyway, since you clearly aren't in a position to tell us anything about how negotiations may be going. 

Nobody is, what's your point?

[AndyJWest]

21 minutes ago, Oban said:

Nobody is, what's your point?

My point is that if you don't know how negotiations are going, it isn't helpful to act as if you do, by telling people that 'it's out of either CEO's hands/control', that 'neither side is willing to budge', and that 'it's in the hands of the legal system'. That's all supposition.

I don't like having so little information about all this either, but I try not to compensate by kidding myself I do.

 

 

 

[Oban]

16 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

My point is that if you don't know how negotiations are going, it isn't helpful to act as if you do, by telling people that 'it's out of either CEO's hands/control', that 'neither side is willing to budge', and that 'it's in the hands of the legal system'. That's all supposition.

I don't like having so little information about all this either, but I try not to compensate by kidding myself I do.

 

 

 

There is plenty of information out there, that lawyers letters were sent by ED to Razbam to cease and desist over 12 months ago , if that's not a legal step/procedure, then colour me f*****g purple.
Razbam CEO has on several occasion this year alone, stated there remains an impasse, where neither side seem remotely intersted in compromise, if there was, it would have been done and dusted by now, I like you wish this whole episide was over, and both parties never had to drag this out, and pursue closure thorough lawyers.

Every thread that is opened, and subsequently closed has posts that pertains to this now in the hands of lawyers, now, last time I looked, when lawyers are invlolved it becomes a legal matter..even if it's offering advisory paths. if either CEO was willing to stop this going to full abitration, they would have done so, both are as stubborn as the other.

The minute lawyers became involved, the dynamics of the situation changed.

If this gets resolved amicably, without having to go into arbitration (where someone else makes the final decision(s) for them), before the 4th quarter of 2025 (October), I will donate £100 to a charity of your choosing.

 

[AndyJWest]

21 minutes ago, Oban said:

There is plenty of information out there, that lawyers letters were sent by ED to Razbam to cease and desist over 12 months ago , if that's not a legal step/procedure, then colour me f*****g purple.
Razbam CEO has on several occasion this year alone, stated there remains an impasse, where neither side seem remotely intersted in compromise, if there was, it would have been done and dusted by now, I like you wish this whole episide was over, and both parties never had to drag this out, and pursue closure thorough lawyers.

Every thread that is opened, and subsequently closed has posts that pertains to this now in the hands of lawyers, now, last time I looked, when lawyers are invlolved it becomes a legal matter..even if it's offering advisory paths. if either CEO was willing to stop this going to full abitration, they would have done so, both are as stubborn as the other.

The minute lawyers became involved, the dynamics of the situation changed.

If this gets resolved amicably, without having to go into arbitration (where someone else makes the final decision(s) for them), before the 4th quarter of 2025 (October), I will donate £100 to a charity of your choosing.

Donate to any charity you like, if and when you feel like it. Just don't drag me into it by suggesting that I have claimed that any particular outcome is likely. Not when I've repeatedly stated that the necessary information clearly isn't available to make a sensible prediction. 

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Oban said:

lawyers letters were sent by ED to Razbam to cease and desist over 12 months ago , if that's not a legal step/procedure, then colour me f*****g purple.

I do hope that you like purple; it seems that your grasp on legal procedures is somewhat tenuous. 

A cease and desist (letter) is the threat of legal action in the future should the other party continue to do something. It's like a child threatening another that "if you don't stop calling me 'booger brain' I'll tell mommy!". That's a cease and desist order. It is usually not a legal procedure. It can be part of one, but unless it is backed by a judge or court it's not a legal procedure.

4 hours ago, Oban said:

when lawyers are invlolved it becomes a legal matter

No. Lawyers are advisors, and they advise on many matters and in different capacities, few of which are legal matters. I regularly receive advice from a lawyer. She lives with me. Telling me how to better cook Parmigiano is not a legal matter. When she mows the lawn, that is not legal action. When she looks at my tax statements in her legal advisory capacity, it's still not a legal matter, just some advice that I receive and to act upon in my cognizance lest my actions turn into a legal matter later. In other words: what I do with that advice is my responsibility. The main advantage of legal advice is usually their procedural knowledge; receiving that advice does not magically turn a task into a legal matter.

Example: A good half of the letters that I send to clients are checked by legal counsel. Not because they are part of legal proceedings, just for compliance and risk mitigation purposes - in case they might become part of some legal proceedings. It's merely policy in my company to have correspondence to clients checked.

Put differently, the opposite is true: If your lawyers are good, less than 1% of anything that they are involved with becomes a legal matter. Unless you redefine 'legal matter' as anything pertaining to laws, a meaningless definition: in that case even parking your car on the street would be a 'legal matter' since parking on public roads is governed by local laws.

4 hours ago, Oban said:

The minute lawyers became involved, the dynamics of the situation changed.

It usually becomes more expensive, yes, but the dynamics stay the same. Lawyers are advisors, they do not decide. The principal does. That's why, when the they lose a case, lawyers usually don't go to prison nor pay a fine, the person(s) that they defended/advised do. When legal counsel is added to a proceeding, the goal is usually to cover that flank (legal exposure). A flank that always existed and that is now better covered. The situation doesn't change at all. 

Edited May 26 by cfrag

[draconus]

"Would you like to discuss it with the Hutts? I'm sure they can settle this."

From the OP and first page of this thread:

On 6/18/2024 at 12:55 AM, NineLine said:

Anything from any user here without an official tag won't be making any official comments, me and @BIGNEWY will only comment on publically available info as this is a legal matter at the end of the day.

On 9/8/2024 at 7:34 PM, NineLine said:

It's a legal issue currently and we cannot and will not comment further than what we have already.

Edited May 26 by draconus

[PE_Crni]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

No. Lawyers are advisors, and they advise on many matters and in different capacities, few of which are legal matters. I The main advantage of legal advice is usually their procedural knowledge; receiving that advice does not magically turn a task into a legal matter.

Put differently, the opposite is true: If your lawyers are good, less than 1% of anything that they are involved with becomes a legal matter.

It usually becomes more expensive, yes, but the dynamics stay the same. Lawyers are advisors, they do not decide. The principal does.

Very well put together I say that as a practicing lawyer

[Oban]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

"Would you like to discuss it with the Hutts? I'm sure they can settle this."

From the OP and first page of this thread:

Somebody has been paying attention !! I rest my case..

[Nightdare]

10 hours ago, cfrag said:

Telling me how to better cook Parmigiano is not a legal matter.

It will be if you forget to say "you're right dear" 

[Dragon1-1]

On 5/26/2025 at 8:59 AM, draconus said:

From the OP and first page of this thread:

Do note that "legal matter" doesn't necessarily mean "ongoing court case", either. It could be at any point between "last warning before we take legal action" and "heading to court". It's in interest of both sides to avoid a full blown lawsuit, they'll probably want to use something that'll allow them to keep it quiet (Ron's proclamations notwithstanding). 

[Horns]

I've been reading the "F-15 WIP Update Discussion" thread from mid-22 onwards, and I think I understand a little more about the experience that customers who've been following since before pre-order have gone through. After getting signals saying mudhen EA was "imminent" or "soon" over an extended period of time I'm sure many of you had doubts, then there appeared to be a resurgance of hope when preorders became available.  I could see a lot of dissatisfaction at the protracted time between pre-order and EA. I expect there was some relief when you did finally have a product in your hands, and the potential it showed must have led to some feeling that the experience might have been worth it. For that to be followed by less than a year of development before reaching a state of arrested development almost seems crueller than if the jet had never hit EA to begin with. While I've been pretty clear about my beliefs regarding where blame should go, I never meant to suggest I lacked empathy for customers or that somehow purchasers got what they deserved; if anything I said gave you that impression I'm sorry, and I will bear my modestly improved knowledge of customer context in mind when I post about emotive things here in future.

Here's hoping there's some kind of positive outcome to all this.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

 

Here's hoping there's some kind of positive outcome to all this.

That's what we're all hoping for. I'm very skeptical of RB and their intentions, but frankly? I've had a lot of fun in the MiG-19P and Mirage 2000. I want to see them in the DCS ecosystem. If and when the Mudhen returns? If major changes have happened at RB to improve their output, responses, and what not? I'll happily buy it.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Their intentions are to get paid.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Their intentions are to get paid.

Well, then maybe they should consider changes.

[Dangerzone]

Wow - this thread almost made a week with no responses. NL and BN must have enjoyed a break.  Is 6 days the new 'high score'?  

One thing I found interesting though. I bought the AV-8B. Really enjoyed it. I heard a lot of bad stuff about it, but I'm guessing I came on 'late' when it had matured. When the F15-E was announced, many predicted disaster with it being in the hands of RB. I was one of those that thought they were naysayers and were holding a grudge about something no longer relevant. I enjoyed the AV8B, and FWIW - I thought the F15E was coming along nicely as well. Such a pity that things didn't work out - as it looked like RB were actually kicking goals and developing a product that was loved and enjoyed by many during it's early access.