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

[Citizen]

2 minutes ago, virgo47 said:

Because we know nothing officially, either it was about such an incredible amount of money that it was worth the risk for either side... or it's just a muscle contest that obviously favours ED, but weakens everybody. How is RB starved of money good for the whole community is beyond me. How is the whole DCS ecosystem better without RB, ditto. And I have no idea why this takes forever (at least it seems so).

Or it's a completely different story - and hopefully, I'll be still alive when it's settled. It takes so long it feels like a lack of good will on one or both sides. And when legal guys/gals are involved, it's a waste of money for all of us (although not necessarily for one side). That said, I'm generally patient. But not oblivious to the context of this quite prolonged dispute.

My worry is that this isn't rock bottom yet.  There's still the DCMA to worry about.

[Oban]

1 minute ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I get what you are saying. You are saying you are 90% sure what the IP is that was used. So what is it? Analytical data? Software, spreadsheets? Which specific thing do you think RB used?

If you can’t answer that you are clearly trolling by not providing the answer for the last like 10 posts when asked directly. 

I have given you the answer as to what can constitue Intellectual property, it doesn't matter the specifics, because Intellectual property,  had you bothered doing research, can be ANY tool used in development, the accusation from ED is that their IP was abused, they really don't have to break it down to spedifically what it was to you, me, or any other Tom, Dick or Harry other then to the legal SME's who deal with such cases.

Like I said, you're not remotely interested, you're merely looking at finger pointing and blame game, which is fine, as neither side are without criticism

[rwbishUP]

I don't understand why the stipulation exists in their 3rd party agreements, that ED gets full rights lock, stock and barrel to abandoned modules. In order to protect customers from getting hung out to dry with an abandoned module they paid for, and that this fallback would allow further development of the module by ED. And, back when this all happened, we were told basically to "be patient, calm down" because either way, the module would be back under development either by RB or under full ownership of ED. Now the news is, if the SE is indeed abandoned, we're just SOL, that it will no longer be developed by anyone for DCS. I don't see how the "ownership fallback to ED stipulation" did anything at all for the customer, only ED. And on top of all this, WE WILL EVENTUALLY EVEN LOSE THE OTHER RB MODULES WE BOUGHT?

Edited October 31, 2024 by rwbishUP

[Dangerzone]

53 minutes ago, rwbishUP said:

Now the news is, if the SE is indeed abandoned, we're just SOL, that it will no longer be developed by anyone for DCS. I don't see how the "ownership fallback to ED stipulation" did anything at all for the customer, only ED. And on top of all this, WE WILL EVENTUALLY EVEN LOSE THE OTHER RB MODULES WE BOUGHT?

Just wondering where are you getting this "news" from? Is this official? Or just speculation / rumor? 

[BIGNEWY]

Morning all I've had a clean up in the thread and given warnings to various people. 

We have tried to be lenient in these threads, but some people can not be civil.

Repeat offenders here who continue to break the rules will be getting heavily moderated by me. Consider this your final warning. 

Thank you 

[Akiazusa]

Clearly the Mirage 2000 dev is still working on the module,according to the discord,one patch including some fixes and new functions to the M2000 was submitted one month before the September update,but u guys didn't include it in the September update.So that's an accident,okay,and we wait another 6 weeks to see if it's in the October update,and in this update,u guys did includes their patch,but only parts of it,and break the module. WHY? So we have to wait another 6 weeks? come on

[Pillowcat]

27 minutes ago, Akiazusa said:

fixes and new functions to the M2000 was submitted one month before the September update

Can you please somehow share a bit more details for undiscorded?

[Akiazusa]

3 hours ago, Pillowcat said:

Can you please somehow share a bit more details for undiscorded?

The patch should including a fix for the alarm panel lights test switch,and a new feature which will show a Red "PCM" on the radar screen when the ECM system is working.

Now only parts of the patch files made their way into the game,causing a Green "PCM" shows on the radar screen and is always there no matter if the ECM is working.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Akiazusa

[nessuno0505]

16 ore fa, rwbishUP ha scritto:

Now the news is, if the SE is indeed abandoned, we're just SOL, that it will no longer be developed by anyone for DCS. I don't see how the "ownership fallback to ED stipulation" did anything at all for the customer, only ED. And on top of all this, WE WILL EVENTUALLY EVEN LOSE THE OTHER RB MODULES WE BOUGHT?

That's not a new, it was clearly stated before: that's the reason for the store credit refunds: if the SE is abandoned, the best outcome possible is that it will remain forever "as is". Being a highly incomplete module, you can refund. The other RB's modules are "finished": if abandoned, you won't loose them: they'll stay forever locked in their current state: no further updates, no improvements, no "m2000c 2" in a few years. Who will manage the bugs raising with the development of the DCS platform is unclear: maybe ED, but if it will be the same as for the bombs fuse, expect a lot of bugs and eons for them to be fixed. But we all hope in a good outcome for the dispute, just I'm not sure the best outcome being RB back to work here.

[rwbishUP]

Regarding a post on the previous pages. I can now see, maybe why the module is still in the store for the original price. Being a legal issue involving contracts and obligations. I am GUESSING that ED is still holding up every contractual stipulation regarding selling the module, just as agreed upon. Thereby giving the opposing party 0 ammunition to maybe pull a stunt like, the example below.

opposing party: "see look, ED made a breach of the contract by removing our module from the sales floor, before any type of verdict was reached, financially damaging our business, so we want damages for theoretic module sales, spanning the entire time the module has been unavailable"

Maybe something like that. So I can see doing everything exactly by the contract agreement regarding that, to make sure ED covers their a*s financially. Because if something like that were to happen, I'm pretty sure we would all be in much much worse shape as it pertains to enjoying DCS.

[Citizen]

24 minutes ago, rwbishUP said:

Regarding a post on the previous pages. I can now see, maybe why the module is still in the store for the original price. Being a legal issue involving contracts and obligations. I am GUESSING that ED is still holding up every contractual stipulation regarding selling the module, just as agreed upon. Thereby giving the opposing party 0 ammunition to maybe pull a stunt like, the example below.

opposing party: "see look, ED made a breach of the contract by removing our module from the sales floor, before any type of verdict was reached, financially damaging our business, so we want damages for theoretic module sales, spanning the entire time the module has been unavailable"

Maybe something like that. So I can see doing everything exactly by the contract agreement regarding that, to make sure ED covers their a*s financially. Because if something like that were to happen, I'm pretty sure we would all be in much much worse shape as it pertains to enjoying DCS.

Possibly.  That depends on whether the contract gives ED the right to stop sales of the module at any time.

[Horns]

On 10/31/2024 at 10:51 AM, rwbishUP said:

I don't understand why the stipulation exists in their 3rd party agreements, that ED gets full rights lock, stock and barrel to abandoned modules. In order to protect customers from getting hung out to dry with an abandoned module they paid for, and that this fallback would allow further development of the module by ED. And, back when this all happened, we were told basically to "be patient, calm down" because either way, the module would be back under development either by RB or under full ownership of ED. Now the news is, if the SE is indeed abandoned, we're just SOL, that it will no longer be developed by anyone for DCS. I don't see how the "ownership fallback to ED stipulation" did anything at all for the customer, only ED. And on top of all this, WE WILL EVENTUALLY EVEN LOSE THE OTHER RB MODULES WE BOUGHT?

 

Please take official word over mine, I'm giving you my own inferences here.

I don't believe there has been any suggestion that ownership of a module would wind up in the hands of ED if that module is abandoned. I think that what was said was that new contracts would stipulate ED would have access to the source code, so that they would have what was needed to maintain a module if the developer was unwilling or unable to. I think the conjecture is regarding whether ED are in fact in possession of the source code, there has been a claim that they are not and people have speculated that it might be because Razbam were operating under an existing contract (without the stipulation regarding source code) instead of having to sign a new contract (with the stipulation). Having the source code for a piece of software does not have any bearing on ownership rights as far as I'm aware.

I believe the actual ownership of the F-15E module is going to be something that has to be determined later. I think the blunt answer is that, even if Razbam leave DCS, the existing F-15E module will be their property unless and until something changes. I think what, if anything, happens with further development is also something that can't be answered currently.

Edit: TL;DR: Neither old or new contracts gave ED ownership of abandoned modules. They may or may not have the source code, but that doesn't mean they do or could own the module. Ownership of the module will be decided later, and whether it will develop further probably after that.

Edited November 1, 2024 by Horns

[Scott-S6]

11 hours ago, Horns said:

Please take official word over mine, I'm giving you my own inferences here.

I don't believe there has been any suggestion that ownership of a module would wind up in the hands of ED if that module is abandoned. I think that what was said was that new contracts would stipulate ED would have access to the source code, so that they would have what was needed to maintain a module if the developer was unwilling or unable to. I think the conjecture is regarding whether ED are in fact in possession of the source code, there has been a claim that they are not and people have speculated that it might be because Razbam were operating under an existing contract (without the stipulation regarding source code) instead of having to sign a new contract (with the stipulation). Having the source code for a piece of software does not have any bearing on ownership rights as far as I'm aware.

I believe the actual ownership of the F-15E module is going to be something that has to be determined later. I think the blunt answer is that, even if Razbam leave DCS, the existing F-15E module will be their property unless and until something changes. I think what, if anything, happens with further development is also something that can't be answered currently.

Edit: TL;DR: Neither old or new contracts gave ED ownership of abandoned modules. They may or may not have the source code, but that doesn't mean they do or could own the module. Ownership of the module will be decided later, and whether it will develop further probably after that.

 

Would ED want to support a module they could not sell? If they don't own it then they need the owner's permission to sell it. It makes little sense to require source code for ongoing module support without having ownership as well.

[Horns]

2 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

Would ED want to support a module they could not sell? If they don't own it then they need the owner's permission to sell it. It makes little sense to require source code for ongoing module support without having ownership as well.

When the previous dev dropped out of DCS I believe ED wanted to do exactly that, support the module simply so that existing owners could continue using their modules with future versions of DCS. The barrier to that was not having the source code, that’s why they changed arrangements. Those modules were not in a state to sell. So in short yes, they did indeed want to support a module they couldn’t sell. Again, take official comments over mine.

Edit: Please note that I’m not saying ED would be obliged to support modules if they had the source code for a module when the developer left DCS. Having the source code would simply give them the option.

Edited November 1, 2024 by Horns

[rob10]

14 hours ago, Horns said:

I think the conjecture is regarding whether ED are in fact in possession of the source code, there has been a claim that they are not ....

As an FYI, pretty sure that Nineline (or at least someone official from ED) has said at this point that ED does not have the F-15 source code.  Rest of your post is completely valid points, just wanted to mention this.

[Oban]

1 hour ago, rob10 said:

As an FYI, pretty sure that Nineline (or at least someone official from ED) has said at this point that ED does not have the F-15 source code.  Rest of your post is completely valid points, just wanted to mention this.

I doubt that ED would aquire/require the source code unless the situation deteriorated that the contract between RB and ED was absolved, and the parties went their seperate ways.

However as the legalities are still ongoing, with the aim of a resolution that put both parties back on the same path, and developlment of all RB modules, to include the F15E, then there's no requirement for ED to obtain the code, as then they could quite easily tell RB .. to go forth and muliply as they're not needed anymore, which would be a massive dick move by ED if they did that.

[Nightdare]

On 10/31/2024 at 1:24 AM, virgo47 said:

How is RB starved of money good for the whole community is beyond me. How is the whole DCS ecosystem better without RB, ditto. And I have no idea why this takes forever (at least it seems so).

 

If you are a boss, and a contractor is stealing your property, that's good for your customers,... how?

And does it really matter how talented someone is when it turns out he's stealing from you?

[Scott-S6]

8 hours ago, Horns said:

When the previous dev dropped out of DCS I believe ED wanted to do exactly that, support the module simply so that existing owners could continue using their modules with future versions of DCS. The barrier to that was not having the source code, that’s why they changed arrangements. Those modules were not in a state to sell. So in short yes, they did indeed want to support a module they couldn’t sell. Again, take official comments over mine.

Edit: Please note that I’m not saying ED would be obliged to support modules if they had the source code for a module when the developer left DCS. Having the source code would simply give them the option.

 

We don't know that. We know that they could not sell or maintain it. Their ideal scenario may have been to continue with both. With no access to the code their was no point even discussing ownership.

Putting development effort and therefore money into a module that cannot make money is obviously not an optimal scenario for ED. Having a team of people supporting a growing roster of modules that cannot generate income (and the list of abandoned modules will inevitably grow over time, it isn't going to shrink) is clearly not sustainable. If they are able to continue to sell those modules that are complete (and possibly the EA modules which will never be finished at a substantial discount?) then this effort can be at least somewhat self-funding. 

It is entirely unreasonable for us to expect ED to maintain modules that bring in no income indefinitely. 

Edited November 2, 2024 by Scott-S6

[Esac_mirmidon]

For a brief moment i missread you...

"It is entirely unreasonable for us to expect RB to maintain modules that bring in no income indefinitely."

How they dare to be paid

[Horns]

 

7 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

We don't know that. We know that they could not sell or maintain it. Their ideal scenario may have been to continue with both. With no access to the code their was no point even discussing ownership.

Putting development effort and therefore money into a module that cannot make money is obviously not an optimal scenario for ED. Having a team of people supporting a growing roster of modules that cannot generate income (and the list of abandoned modules will inevitably grow over time, it isn't going to shrink) is clearly not sustainable. If they are able to continue to sell those modules that are complete (and possibly the EA modules which will never be finished at a substantial discount?) then this effort can be at least somewhat self-funding. 

It is entirely unreasonable for us to expect ED to maintain modules that bring in no income indefinitely. 

 

Please note the comment in the third to last post "Although we offered to support their product, they declined to make the files available to do so". In that case, ED presumably considered that the cost of supporting these modules for free while not earning from them was more acceptable than the obvious questions about the long term viability of third party products.

They would not be obligated to provide this support, but having the source code would position them to do so if/as long as they they wished.

14 hours ago, rob10 said:

As an FYI, pretty sure that Nineline (or at least someone official from ED) has said at this point that ED does not have the F-15 source code.  Rest of your post is completely valid points, just wanted to mention this.

Cheers. I heard that too, it wasn't listed in the official statements though so I didn't include it. I will add that I haven't seen anything said by anyone official to refute it either, FWIW.

Edit: I'm not addressing the ownership thing because I have never seen anything from either ED or a third-party that said, implied or hinted at any transfer of ownership for modules third parties no longer want to support. If you can show me something to the contrary I'll happily do some more digging, but I'm not going to try to refute a suggestion that, as far as I can tell, has never been made. In the statement in the post I linked above, it would have made much more sense to say "we offered to take over their product" if that was the case.

@SkateZilla might be able to speak further to this.

Edited November 2, 2024 by Horns
Clarified which post I was talking about

[Nightdare]

7 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

We don't know that. We know that they could not sell or maintain it. Their ideal scenario may have been to continue with both. With no access to the code their was no point even discussing ownership.

Putting development effort and therefore money into a module that cannot make money is obviously not an optimal scenario for ED. Having a team of people supporting a growing roster of modules that cannot generate income (and the list of abandoned modules will inevitably grow over time, it isn't going to shrink) is clearly not sustainable. If they are able to continue to sell those modules that are complete (and possibly the EA modules which will never be finished at a substantial discount?) then this effort can be at least somewhat self-funding. 

It is entirely unreasonable for us to expect ED to maintain modules that bring in no income indefinitely. 

 

Unfortunately, that is something ED should have thought about before allowing these 3rd party modules on their platform

This is not Steam, they only function in DCS, there is no way to transfer this license, there is no alternative to make these modules stand alone

These products were made to be used solely in DCS and have been vetted by ED, where there's authority, there is responsibility

 

So regardless of the sense of entitlement or illogical reasoning some ED critics I put through the wringer the past few months

Those that now consider these 3rd party acquisitions a risk they don't want to take anymore, I cannot fault them for thinking so

 

[SkateZilla]

7 hours ago, Horns said:

 

Please note the comment in the third to last post "Although we offered to support their product, they declined to make the files available to do so". In that case, ED presumably considered that the cost of supporting these modules for free while not earning from them was more acceptable than the obvious questions about the long term viability of third party products.

They would not be obligated to provide this support, but having the source code would position them to do so if/as long as they they wished.

Cheers. I heard that too, it wasn't listed in the official statements though so I didn't include it. I will add that I haven't seen anything said by anyone official to refute it either, FWIW.

Edit: I'm not addressing the ownership thing because I have never seen anything from either ED or a third-party that said, implied or hinted at any transfer of ownership for modules third parties no longer want to support. If you can show me something to the contrary I'll happily do some more digging, but I'm not going to try to refute a suggestion that, as far as I can tell, has never been made. In the statement in the post I linked above, it would have made much more sense to say "we offered to take over their product" if that was the case.

@SkateZilla might be able to speak further to this.

 

I am not an ED Employee, so therefore anything I've posted should not be seen as official / cannon / prime universe, etc etc etc.

[rob10]

4 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

Unfortunately, that is something ED should have thought about before allowing these 3rd party modules on their platform

This is not Steam, they only function in DCS, there is no way to transfer this license, there is no alternative to make these modules stand alone

These products were made to be used solely in DCS and have been vetted by ED, where there's authority, there is responsibility

 

So regardless of the sense of entitlement or illogical reasoning some ED critics I put through the wringer the past few months

Those that now consider these 3rd party acquisitions a risk they don't want to take anymore, I cannot fault them for thinking so

As has been alluded to in previous posts, after the Hawk debacle ED stated that they would add a requirement that they get a copy of the source code so they can at least maintain modules at a functional level (I don't realistically see them taking over development ever, just too much involved to get up to speed) if something happened with the dev.  Speculation is that the F-15 contract predated this clause (which is plausible due to loooonnnnggg development times for modules).  I agree they should either make sure it continues to work (at least for a reasonable amount of time -- not sure I'd hold them to keeping it going for 20 years past developer folding) or refund it.  But I don't see that they have a responsibility to take it beyond where it was at the point when you bought it.  You're only guaranteed the state it's in when you bought it but one hopes it improves beyond that or the dev doesn't have a long future ahead of them.

[Horns]

3 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

I am not an ED Employee, so therefore anything I've posted should not be seen as official / cannon / prime universe, etc etc etc.

Yes understood, and perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wasn’t suggesting you could make official comment. I had just thought I remembered you commenting at some point about what the contract change post-Hawk entailed.

[SkateZilla]

10 hours ago, Horns said:

Yes understood, and perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wasn’t suggesting you could make official comment. I had just thought I remembered you commenting at some point about what the contract change post-Hawk entailed.

That's a comment from an ED press release, stating that Situations like the Hawk will not happen w/ any new contracts/projects moving forward.

The unclear variable in this is: RB and IRIS both announced the F-15E Projects in 2012, so if those Agreements were signed within 4 years of those announcements they'd still pre-date the 3rd Party IP Rights change ED Made for new contracts in ~2018.

This is also not the same situation, so if the change was a clause inserted to prevent another "Hawk", then it wouldn't apply to RB.

VEAO allegedly left DCS because it wasn't profitable for them to continue. So they ended support and left.

RB Voluntarily ended development and support as a result of an internal contract dispute.
 

Edited November 3, 2024 by SkateZilla