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

[JuiceIsLoose]

5 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

Owned and led by the same person (the software used is probably the same for both and owned separately and licensed by Nick grey to EDSA and EDMS), both companies could be negatively affected by the infringement

I do not know if RB does business with both of them

Well if they're different companies and RB holds contracts with different companies. How does an issue with one company then breach the other companies contract?.... And I'd imagine the same IP isn't used in DCS (the commercial product) and MCS (the military professional product).

Edited October 21, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[Nightdare]

Just now, JuiceIsLoose said:

Well if they're are different companies and RB holds contracts with different companies. How does an issue with one company then breach the other companies contract?.... And I'd imagine the same IP isn't used in DCS (the commercial product) and MCS (the military professional product).

 

 

I think it is, but one is more limited (less realistic) than the other, stripping some functionality out of the existing software is easier than building a extra program that does and uses 90% the same things

[ssn]

20 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Thirdly: Not paying a contractor that abuses your IP is far from going "Thermonuclear" and actually a quite common and acceptable occurrence

Witholding all the revenue from a smaller partner for a year while serving as a gatekeeper to the only storefront that keeps selling IP of said partner is pretty thermonuclear and may well prevent the smaller party from going to court.  Also, looks like a shakedown and is not acceptable to me.  And I would very much love to be mistaken about these appearances.

[JuiceIsLoose]

17 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

I think it is, but one is more limited (less realistic) than the other, stripping some functionality out of the existing software is easier than building a extra program that does and uses 90% the same things

Again, separate companies, separate contracts. Would love clarity that it is EDSA IP that was abused and not ESMS, that's all.

[Oban]

I think there's some folks taking my wording "Thermonuclear" a little bit too literally, I was talking about IF this was MY company that was being abused, and being paid lip service to and ignored C's and D's, then to protect MY company, and MY investments, and MY staff, and MY reputation, then 100% I would do what it takes, no matter how drastic that mean, in order to protect MY company, that is what I mean by thermonuclear.

Once you go to the strictest/harshest option, then the offending party simply has no other choice but to take notice.
Is it ideal, Jesus no, because that option generally effects and impacts everyone else, those people are not to blame, they're victims of their OWN companies bad practices and procedures and duplicity.

[Nightdare]

43 minutes ago, ssn said:

Witholding all the revenue from a smaller partner for a year while serving as a gatekeeper to the only storefront that keeps selling IP of said partner is pretty thermonuclear

 

Again, where is the WHY?

Why was ED withholding revenue?

If for <profanity>s and giggles, then RB would be calling Perry Mason Yesterday and making bank tomorrow, probably take 50% of the IP ownership as compensation

If it's for misuse of IP, then it's not "thermonuclear", then it's the bloody correct road to force matters

 

43 minutes ago, ssn said:

and may well prevent the smaller party from going to court.

 

Sorry, I'm not a fan of simply 'hating the big corporations', this BS "David/Goliath" mentality is fine for a biblical lesson, in the real world, just because someone is strong, doesn't make them automatically the bad guy, I'll leave that crap to the misguided Marxists

"Weak" does not equal "innocent" by definition

 

Apparently, RB had enough funds to still be afloat after almost 2 years of missing out on the big paycheck which is the F-15, and for all we know, not even doing an effort to get that money back

Don't tell me they don't have a lawyer, they've been around too long in a world of contracts not to be that stupid

And don't tell me not pursuing this matter is not worth the effort, the money they're missing out on can easily afford a lawyer, especially if they are in your mind 'in the right'

 

 

43 minutes ago, ssn said:

Also, looks like a shakedown and is not acceptable to me.  And I would very much love to be mistaken about these appearances.

 

Great shakedown, considering the customer trust (and funds) its costing ED currently, remind me not to hire any of them if this is the best idea they have to make money 

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Again, separate companies, separate contracts. Would love clarity that it is EDSA IP that was abused and not ESMS, that's all.

 

Doesn't matter if the IP/Licence owner also is the owner of the companies involved

If this software is used by both, then RB has a problem with both, thing is that WE only get the story from 1 of the companies involved since this is the party WE are doing business with

Edited October 21, 2024 by Nightdare

[Oban]

We are NOT doing business with ED, we're customers/consumers, nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody who goes shopping for goods uses the term, "I'm off to do business with the grocery store" or if in the UK " I'm off to do some business in Tesco, by buying a tin of beans"

or

" I had a great business deal today, I got two packets of toilet roll, for the price of one"


Now, if you were an education centre, and approached ED for a purchase of multiple licences for an online flight school, and they agreed, and offered a different price for mass purchase, then you'd be a retailer, and that would make your purchase a business transaction

 

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

You control your account access. We cant help if you are irresponsible and accidentally gave him the login and password

 

Findlay and I are not irresponsible. Thank you for clarifying the situation, DCS module's die with me, that's understood now. I think this should have been a private message.

Mizzy

[Mizzy]

On 10/20/2024 at 12:09 AM, Beirut said:

 

Nick Grey called DCS a game in an interview.  It's also listed as a game on this site, on Steam, and even - god forbid - on Wikipedia. It's a game.

 

And a great one. 

Nick Gray is correct, DCS is a computer game based on realistic fight simulation, who thought it was anything else is wishful thinking. Just enjoy DCS for what it is. 

Mizzy

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

There are no distinct issues, there is an action and a reaction over the same issue

1 allegedly breached contract, the other is forcing the offending party to still honor the contract (this is probably why the F-15 is still offered for sale)

To hold someone to their contract by legal means is not a breach of contract, the law will even support you on that!

 

Show me where a company cannot put sanctions on the offending party when they breach their contract!

Here the thing, even I *as an employee* can be suspended without pay, depending on what dispute arose, fraud for instance

 

 

..then that's on them, they are not parties in this dispute, for all intents and purposes, they can still buy the early acces F-15, the other modules are still  playable

Funny how you are complaining ED reacted to a situation, while you yourself acted before a probable situation, so it's Ok for you to protect your wallet, but not for ED to protect theirs (and in the bigger picture: your licensed modules)

 

 

No, the only thing that would help is this dispute being settled, you don't need transparency for that

you don't even want that, you just want assurances you get to keep your toys regardless the outcome

 

 

First off, doesn't need to be stated in the contract, just "Sanctions may be applied (Up to -but not limited to, legal proceedings)" would cover it

And just an FYI, since ED is not in court for refusing to pay RB for over a year, I'm guessing their lawyers know more about this than you

 

 

Where did ED go "Thermo Nuclear"?

First off: They didn't post big on their own medium what RB did to them (sound familiar?)

Secondly: Are you privy to how long arguments lasted before ED actually placed sanctions on RB?

Thirdly: Not paying a contractor that abuses your IP is far from going "Thermonuclear" and actually a quite common and acceptable occurrence, as is RB still exists and happily promoting its business

 

Have you ever thought you are banging your head against a brick wall ! Have you ever thought that is his intention! He's here to be a pain in the arse and that is crystal clear to all.

Mizzy

3 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Well if they're different companies and RB holds contracts with different companies. How does an issue with one company then breach the other companies contract?.... And I'd imagine the same IP isn't used in DCS (the commercial product) and MCS (the military professional product).

 

That is what Layers are employed for !

[exhausted]

8 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

There are no distinct issues, there is an action and a reaction over the same issue

1 allegedly breached contract, the other is forcing the offending party to still honor the contract (this is probably why the F-15 is still offered for sale)

To hold someone to their contract by legal means is not a breach of contract, the law will even support you on that!

 

Show me where a company cannot put sanctions on the offending party when they breach their contract!

Here the thing, even I *as an employee* can be suspended without pay, depending on what dispute arose, fraud for instance

 

 

..then that's on them, they are not parties in this dispute, for all intents and purposes, they can still buy the early acces F-15, the other modules are still  playable

Funny how you are complaining ED reacted to a situation, while you yourself acted before a probable situation, so it's Ok for you to protect your wallet, but not for ED to protect theirs (and in the bigger picture: your licensed modules)

 

 

No, the only thing that would help is this dispute being settled, you don't need transparency for that

you don't even want that, you just want assurances you get to keep your toys regardless the outcome

 

 

First off, doesn't need to be stated in the contract, just "Sanctions may be applied (Up to -but not limited to, legal proceedings)" would cover it

And just an FYI, since ED is not in court for refusing to pay RB for over a year, I'm guessing their lawyers know more about this than you

 

 

Where did ED go "Thermo Nuclear"?

First off: They didn't post big on their own medium what RB did to them (sound familiar?)

Secondly: Are you privy to how long arguments lasted before ED actually placed sanctions on RB?

Thirdly: Not paying a contractor that abuses your IP is far from going "Thermonuclear" and actually a quite common and acceptable occurrence, as is RB still exists and happily promoting its business

 

Well look who appointed themselves as ED's personal jailhouse lawyer. You cannot create new breaches in different agreements to gain leverage over another supposed breach, while failing to mitigate any of the damages. If this goes to mediation, arbitration or court, then many forums will look at the sincerity of the complaining parties in explaining how they suffered damages while inflicting other damages. It is NOT just one series of events, but rather contracts being shredded in several different ways.

If ED knew about a supposed IP breach, did not mitigate (if damages even existed) and only entered into new agreements as means to recover whatever supposed losses suffered, then ED would have negotiated in bad faith and this will be exposed. The very fact this is with lawyers shows how little foresight at least one party had in getting them involved in the first place.

Edited October 22, 2024 by exhausted

[NineLine]

21 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Can we at least get clarification that this IP issue is based on Eagle Dynamics SA IP? And not the military side of ED, EDMS? Because, as it has been pointed out a few times EDSA and EDMS are completely separate companies. Because if this had anything to do with ED Mission Systems I don't see how that would impact a contract with Eagle Dynamics SA who makes DCS.

As stated many times, all the info we can share is in the original post. We will not get into the nitty gritty as it's an on going discussion with RB. I know there is a lot of confusing info out there, some true, some not. But we continue to go through the proper channels to work this out. Thanks.

14 hours ago, exhausted said:

Well look who appointed themselves as ED's personal jailhouse lawyer. You cannot create new breaches in different agreements to gain leverage over another supposed breach, while failing to mitigate any of the damages. If this goes to mediation, arbitration or court, then many forums will look at the sincerity of the complaining parties in explaining how they suffered damages while inflicting other damages. It is NOT just one series of events, but rather contracts being shredded in several different ways.

If ED knew about a supposed IP breach, did not mitigate (if damages even existed) and only entered into new agreements as means to recover whatever supposed losses suffered, then ED would have negotiated in bad faith and this will be exposed. The very fact this is with lawyers shows how little foresight at least one party had in getting them involved in the first place.

 

You two should take this debate to DMs, especially if you want to drift near the rules, if continued here I will be deleting replies from both of you. Your hypothetical theories and comments are just muddying the waters around something no one really knows much about publicly. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

29 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As stated many times, all the info we can share is in the original post. We will not get into the nitty gritty as it's an on going discussion with RB. I know there is a lot of confusing info out there, some true, some not. But we continue to go through the proper channels to work this out. Thanks.

All I'm getting at here is that if it is an IP issue with a separate company, EDMS, then it seems weird to drag DCS users into this by not paying a third party contract between RB and EDSA. Like if ED decided to withhold payment on a RB EDMS contract that would make more sense, if the IP issue was related to EDMS and not EDSA.

Can you guys just clarify at least that this IP issue is between EDSA and RB and EDMS isn't involved in this specific IP issue in which ED is withholding payment? Because if this has nothing to do with DCS (made by EDSA) then this whole thing seems wild that ED has let it impact DCS.

Edited October 22, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[maxTRX]

21 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

Sorry, I'm not a fan of simply 'hating the big corporations', this BS "David/Goliath" mentality is fine for a biblical lesson, in the real world, just because someone is strong, doesn't make them automatically the bad guy, I'll leave that crap to the misguided Marxists...

 

Nowadays those misguided marxists  ( insert any substitute name here ) are 'guiding' the big companies quite well I must say...  Now, if I can only blend it with the theme here

[freehand]

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

All I'm getting at here is that if it is an IP issue with a separate company, EDMS, then it seems weird to drag DCS users into this by not paying a third party contract between RB and EDSA. Like if ED decided to withhold payment on a RB EDMS contract that would make more sense, if the IP issue was related to EDMS and not EDSA.

Can you guys just clarify at least that this IP issue is between EDSA and RB and EDMS isn't involved in this specific IP issue in which ED is withholding payment? Because if this has nothing to do with DCS (made by EDSA) then this whole thing seems wild that ED has let it impact DCS.

 

You do not know when to stop do you.

[JuiceIsLoose]

17 minutes ago, freehand said:

You do not know when to stop do you.

All I’m saying is if the IP isn’t about EDSA IP, then I don’t see why the users of DCS should be punished by ED not paying RB in order to protect IP from another company, like EDMS. 
 

If it is truly EDSA IP that they claim was misused, they could choose to clarify just that to my question. 

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

All I’m saying is if the IP isn’t about EDSA IP, then I don’t see why the users of DCS should be punished by ED not paying RB in order to protect IP from another company, like EDMS. 
 

If it is truly EDSA IP that they claim was misused, they could choose to clarify just that to my question. 

Nobody is being punished, this isn't the school playground, your self entitlement here is staggering.

Do all the current Razbam modules, including the F15E still work?  YES they do, the ONLY thing that's effected is updates for the time being, the hyperbole coming from certain individuals is mindblowing here.

How anyone feels they're being "punished " is staggering

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

All I'm getting at here is that if it is an IP issue with a separate company, EDMS, then it seems weird to drag DCS users into this by not paying a third party contract between RB and EDSA. Like if ED decided to withhold payment on a RB EDMS contract that would make more sense, if the IP issue was related to EDMS and not EDSA.

Can you guys just clarify at least that this IP issue is between EDSA and RB and EDMS isn't involved in this specific IP issue in which ED is withholding payment? Because if this has nothing to do with DCS (made by EDSA) then this whole thing seems wild that ED has let it impact DCS.

 

And you are guessing at things you are not aware of, so please try to understand what I have written to you a number of times already. We have shared all we can share right now, and the rest is in the hands of both management parties and their lawyers. Thanks. 

[Horns]

16 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

All I’m saying is if the IP isn’t about EDSA IP, then I don’t see why the users of DCS should be punished by ED not paying RB in order to protect IP from another company, like EDMS. 
 

If it is truly EDSA IP that they claim was misused, they could choose to clarify just that to my question. 

The effect on customers is the lack of support for Razbam's modules. ED didn't ban Razbam from supporting their modules, Razbam chose to do that - that is the only reason that this has affected DCS customers. I believe ED would still welcome Razbam resuming support while the dispute is resolved - NL/BN please correct me (if you're at liberty to do so) if I'm wrong about Razbam still being welcome to resume support.

Edited October 23, 2024 by Horns
2nd line, changed "users" to "customers" for consistency

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, Horns said:

The effect on customers is the lack of support for Razbam's modules. ED didn't ban Razbam from supporting their modules, Razbam chose to do that - that is the only reason that this has affected DCS customers. I believe ED would still welcome Razbam resuming support while the dispute is resolved - NL/BN please correct me (if you're at liberty to do so) if I'm wrong about Razbam still being welcome to resume support.

 

I am fairly certain that RB developers have lost their access to the SDK from ED. So even if they wanted to update them, they no longer can. I'm not going to get into the debate of having someone continue to work on something after not receiving payment for over a year, as your point is if RB even has the tools available to do it from ED. But I would too like to hear if this is incorrect from NL and BN.

Edited October 23, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, Horns said:

The effect on customers is the lack of support for Razbam's modules. ED didn't ban Razbam from supporting their modules, Razbam chose to do that - that is the only reason that this has affected DCS customers. I believe ED would still welcome Razbam resuming support while the dispute is resolved - NL/BN please correct me (if you're at liberty to do so) if I'm wrong about Razbam still being welcome to resume support.

 

I can understand if Razbam don't want to work for free for more than a year now.

[Oban]

53 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I am fairly certain that RB developers have lost their access to the SDK from ED. So even if they wanted to update them, they no longer can. I'm not going to get into the debate of having someone continue to work on something after not receiving payment for over a year, as your point is if RB even has the tools available to do it from ED. But I would too like to hear if this is incorrect from NL and BN.

 

You like to know too much, you're sense of self entitlement continues to be staggering.

You clearly have no idea how  a business works when dealing with 3rd parties either, you're one of those people that cannot accept what's being told to you at face value.

Do you ask your employer how he conducts his business, and why they make all their business decisions..?

Why on earth would you allow 3rd party developers, especially those who have slammed the living shyt out of you , and going out of their way to split the communit online at every opportunity, leaking confidential conversations, and a multitide of other things, access to the very software that's quite possibly at the base of the entire IP infringement?

You wouldn't.period.

 

[Vamp]

50 minutes ago, Oban said:

You like to know too much, you're sense of self entitlement continues to be staggering.

You clearly have no idea how  a business works when dealing with 3rd parties either, you're one of those people that cannot accept what's being told to you at face value.

Do you ask your employer how he conducts his business, and why they make all their business decisions..?

Why on earth would you allow 3rd party developers, especially those who have slammed the living shyt out of you , and going out of their way to split the communit online at every opportunity, leaking confidential conversations, and a multitide of other things, access to the very software that's quite possibly at the base of the entire IP infringement?

You wouldn't.period.

 

Quoted post is an answer to a previous one stating that RB essentially doesn't support their modules right now out of vicious choice as they still would be capable to do it with full access to the required tools. It's just a correction and it even says that the point of it is not to question the decision making on the topic from either party.

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

You like to know too much, you're sense of self entitlement continues to be staggering.

You clearly have no idea how  a business works when dealing with 3rd parties either, you're one of those people that cannot accept what's being told to you at face value.

Do you ask your employer how he conducts his business, and why they make all their business decisions..?

Why on earth would you allow 3rd party developers, especially those who have slammed the living shyt out of you , and going out of their way to split the communit online at every opportunity, leaking confidential conversations, and a multitide of other things, access to the very software that's quite possibly at the base of the entire IP infringement?

You wouldn't.period.

 

So you are saying that RB does not have access to update their modules?

Because that goes against another users post (the one I was quoting) saying that Razbam did have access to update their modules. So which is it? Do they have access or not? Simple question. And because it seems not clear between yourself and the other user, that’s where I simple stated it would be great if BN or NL could clear it up for users on both sides of this discussion.
 

Not even getting into if they should update it, that’s a different topic. 
 

Also, as an aside, yes I do question my employer when they make decisions I have questions about. It’s a great perk of being part of company that is open and transparent and welcomes feedback. Sounds like your employer is not like that. 
 

Edited October 23, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[Oban]

14 minutes ago, Vamp said:

Quoted post is an answer to a previous one stating that RB essentially doesn't support their modules right now out of vicious choice as they still would be capable to do it with full access to the required tools. It's just a correction and it even says that the point of it is not to question the decision making on the topic from either party.

Hmmmmm great first post, when you use the term "vicious" kind of makes it obvious what your opinion/views are on this.

Considering the said 3rd party devs publicly stated they'd never work for ED ever again, and slagged them off, it was a sure fire way of ending their access to the SDK, and again if it was my company, given their public actions, albeit initially out of frustration, then I'd also have removed any sort of access to MY software, but this seems too difficult to grasp for self entitled and needy people.

There's an old saying " I wants don't get"

100% the situation is far from what all of us consumers, and enthusiasts want, however, as it stands all of the modules from RB are still functioning, all that's relevent to the end user, that's us, has been posted on page one, and has been repeated ad nauseum by the community managers, what's so difficult to accept that's the current state of things ?