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

[Dragon1-1]

3 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

The best way to prevent that would be to be proactive, and go "You've got a month to hand it all over starting *gavel hits* now. Go."

This is actually how it usually goes, except "it" is money. RAZBAM would likely not be ordered to hand over the modules. They'll be ordered to pay damages and stop doing whatever ED wants them to stop doing. If they don't do it right away (or in case of money, within allotted time), then the court lays on the hurt. COC is easy to prove when it's something like "we told you to pay up, but we didn't get the money, how do you explain that?". They are under no obligation to keep selling the modules they made, or to continue developing them in any way.

Of course, with the dispute resolved, ED would have no reason to stop them from selling the modules, nor would RAZBAM have a reason not to continue development, unless the whole thing bankrupts them, that is. Presumably, they would get the money they're owed, and they'd get any proceeds for module sales from there on. In fact, Ron could have chosen to keep this behind closed doors and kept selling modules, people would be ticked off about the lack of updates, and some would probably catch wind of the dispute regardless, but when resolved, updates would "magically" start happening again. They chose to make it public, and they chose to remove the modules from the store.

[Tank50us]

18 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Ron could have chosen to keep this behind closed doors and kept selling modules, people would be ticked off about the lack of updates, and some would probably catch wind of the dispute regardless, but when resolved, updates would "magically" start happening again. They chose to make it public, and they chose to remove the modules from the store.

And this is why I'm in favor of the idea of them handing the modules over to ED instead of continuing development. Sure, it would be ideal if things went back to what they were. But I believe that needs to be the precedent. You are developing a module for DCS, and are being contracted by ED and the OEM to do so. If you attempt to take ED IP, and do something not authorized by ED, everything you made will be taken, and you'll get nothing in return.

The reason I believe this is because this is the second time ED's had to deal with this kind of situation. And seeing as they have enough issues trying to sort out the spaghetti code that is the DCS engine by now, another fiasco of this scale could do irrecoverable damage, so, unfortunately, some hammers need to be dropped. But, we'll ultimately see what a judge and/or jury say on the matter.

[Dragon1-1]

54 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

And this is why I'm in favor of the idea of them handing the modules over to ED instead of continuing development.

Which is, as per Ron, not happening, and there's no way the court will even consider that, when it was neither a part of the contract nor explicitly demanded by law. Lawyers don't fly DCS and do not care one bit about our community. For them, a trial is mostly a game of who can out-lawyer who, and I suspect this one is just a procedural theater that's only happening because of one man's ego. What we need to do in this case is wait for the lawyers' little circlejerk to give us the decision that everyone is expecting anyway, but which needs an official judge's stamp to get Ron to comply with it.

Also, ED has enough on their plate. They'd have to hire developers, possibly former RAZBAM contractors, to work on those modules. In practice, I'd fully expect those modules to go the way of the BST modules, not defunct, but not really top priority for ED to fix or to ensure accuracy of. Not that RAZBAM were sticklers for accuracy, of course, at least before the F-15E (which seemed to be heading in the right direction).

Edited April 17 by Dragon1-1

[Aapje]

59 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Ron could have chosen to keep this behind closed doors and kept selling modules, people would be ticked off about the lack of updates, and some would probably catch wind of the dispute regardless, but when resolved, updates would "magically" start happening again. They chose to make it public, and they chose to remove the modules from the store.

Ron did choose to allow ED to keep selling the modules for a year, even though ED was pocketing all the money from the sales. You are ignoring that this situation is much better for ED than for Razbam, since ED was getting all that money, and Razbam got nothing. I don't really understand why you are blaming Razbam here, when they actually did do what you want for an entire year without any compensation. Do you really think that they are obliged to forever let ED profit from their work, without getting any compensation themselves?

Your other suggestion that customers should be kept in the dark and that ED/Razbam should pretend that nothing is going on, while not fulfilling their obligations to their customers, is frankly appalling. To me it shows that you automatically side with ED no matter what they do, and completely ignore the obligations to consumers. Given that you are a consumer, I think that you are suffering from the consumer-equivalent to Stockholm syndrome.

[Dragon1-1]

8 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Ron did choose to allow ED to keep selling the modules for a year, even though ED was pocketing all the money from the sales. You are ignoring that this situation is much better for ED than for Razbam, since ED was getting all that money, and Razbam got nothing.

ED was not pocketing the money, in such cases, it's normally held in escrow. Neither ED nor RAZBAM will be able to access it until the dispute is over. Otherwise, it would blatantly incentivize screwing contractors over like this, and that's not the intent of those rules.

10 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Your other suggestion that customers should be kept in the dark and that ED/Razbam should pretend that nothing is going on, while not fulfilling their obligations to their customers, is frankly appalling. 

I'm just saying they could have done that, and you or anyone else wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it. Just as how you can't do a damn thing about the fact the only things we hear are from a CEO who is clearly losing the fight and having a fit about it. What you can do is not let Ron dictate the narrative and fall for his hogwash, like you just did. As per what was said a few posts up, it's not even the first time he's done this.

As for the obligation to consumers, consider who has those obligations: ED, who was faced with the fact RAZBAM breached their contractual obligations, or RAZBAM, who chose to breach them in first place? The modules were made by RAZBAM, after all, and it's their responsibility to keep developing them, which includes not doing anything dumb that could make ED withhold money. ED is doing what they can, which is to keep the modules working from their end, which they do. Also, all other 3rd party devs seem to be on ED's side in this, which I find quite telling. 

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

You are developing a module for DCS, and are being contracted by ED and the OEM to do so.

This is just a biased view on the situation. You can just as easily frame it as: Razbam developed the module and is allowing ED to sell it on their store for a percentage of the sales price.

Ultimately, the contract between the two parties is not public, but we can be sure that both sides have obligations, and we do not know for sure whether each side has kept their obligations and to what extent. Any violations can also be subjective, where the sides may disagree whether and to what extent the violations occurred. That's why we have an impartial court in the first place, so they can judge to what extent the subjective opinions of each side will be treated as (legal) fact.

For example, ED seems to believe that they can keep all the money from the sales that they would normally have had to pay to Razbam, based on damage that they claim to have suffered due to Razbam's actions. But given that we know very little for sure about Razbam's actions or the obligations in the contract, we cannot know whether the courts would agree with ED that a violation occurred, that the damages are as large as claimed, that ED mitigated the damages as much as they should have*, etc. If the courts would disagree, then Razbam can claim damages, since they will not have been paid the money that they are due.

However, it doesn't need to come to a court case. One of the main benefits of lawyers is that they tend to have knowledge of how courts tend to judge things, so they can advise their clients on what claims are likely to be adopted by the courts and to what extent. If both side agree sufficiently on what the courts are likely to decide, then a court case is typically not needed and they can compromise on the remaining difference of opinion. Basically, if the (financial, reputational, emotional, etc) costs of the court case are higher than their expectation of getting a better deal out of a court case, then it makes sense to settle.

Note that the reputational costs can be very significant, and both sides can have an incentive to present their case to the public in a way that makes them look good, rather than in the most truthful way.

* You are normally obliged to do your best to keep the damages you suffer as small as possible.

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

If you attempt to take ED IP, and do something not authorized by ED, everything you made will be taken, and you'll get nothing in return.

Is this anything more than a revenge fantasy based on speculation (because it is mere speculation that Razbam took ED's IP)?

The courts typically do not engage in this sort of vindictive prosecution, but look at the obligations of each side. The only way in which I can see ED getting the source code is if Razbam has to pay so much in damages to ED, that they can only pay by selling them their IP, or if the contract stipulates that ED has the right to the source code in certain situations.

Edited April 17 by Aapje

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

ED was not pocketing the money, in such cases, it's normally held in escrow.

I don't think so. Escrow is normally used when both sides agree that a payment should be made, but only if the other party meets their obligations. However, that second party will incur costs in meeting those obligations, and they want a guarantee to be paid at least part of the payment if they meet their obligations.

This is not at all the case here. ED apparently believes that their damages are greater than all the money they withheld, so they can use that money to pay for their damages. Razbam has no obligations that they can meet, to get that money, since the alleged damages cannot be undone, presumably. The way they might get (some of) that money is through a judgement or a settlement, if it gets decided that the damages are less than what was withheld.

It can make sense to put the money for a settlement into escrow, when the other party also has certain obligations under the settlement. Then the money can be released once the obligations have been met.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Neither ED nor RAZBAM will be able to access it until the dispute is over. Otherwise, it would blatantly incentivize screwing contractors over like this, and that's not the intent of those rules.

I don't see how this is any different from companies not paying contractors for work done. It is actually quite common for contractors to be screwed over by payments being delayed or not made at all, and the way for the contractor to deal with that is to go to court (or simply accept it).

It is definitely not the norm for all contracted work to be paid through escrow. Companies would probably run into severe liquidity problems if they had to pay their contractors and such through escrow, because our economy has a huge amount of informal loans by companies paying late, which is effectively an interest-free loan.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What you can do is not let Ron dictate the narrative and fall for his hogwash, like you just did.

That is rather ironic, because I see you taking ED's unproven claims as fact.

I'm actually way more even-handed, because I don't take either side. But of course that looks like bias, to those who themselves are biased.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

As for the obligation to consumers, consider who has those obligations: ED, who was faced with the fact RAZBAM breached their contractual obligations, or RAZBAM, who chose to breach them in first place?

It is very obvious that consumers have a contract with ED, who they pay their money to. It's no concern of the consumer that ED outsourced the work to Razbam. It is the responsibility of ED to uphold their obligations to the customers, and if they cannot, they they need to compensate the consumer for their damages.

If ED cannot uphold their obligations because of a contract violation by Razbam, then ED can try to get compensation from Razbam, but this has nothing to do with their obligations towards their customers.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The modules were made by RAZBAM, after all, and it's their responsibility to keep developing them

No, we know that ED has a responsibility to consumers to improve the F-15, because it was sold as early access with a promise of improvement.

There also may be an obligation of Razbam to ED (and not to the consumer!) to deliver certain improvement. But this is a good example of you taking speculation as fact, since we don't know what the private contract between Razbam and ED says, exactly.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

ED is doing what they can, which is to keep the modules working from their end, which they do.

That's valid for all the modules but the F-15. ED made a promise to consumers that the module would keep being developed.

Do you really think that ED is allowing F-15 owners to undo their purchase out of kindness? Of course not. They know that they are violating their obligations.

Edited April 17 by Aapje

[msi1411]

23 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Do you always solve every problem like Solomon?

You never thought that 1 party might be wrong and 1 right, therefore, pressuring both into a solution would result in 1 of them getting screwed by 'the public' for their own selfish reasons?

As someone who also stopped buying anything DCS related, I can say it comes down to one simple reason, at least for me.

You said one party might be wrong, while the other is right - and I agree with that. But I cannot judge, with the current information publicly available, who's at fault.

It's easy to blame ED, blowing up the entire relationship over what appears to be a limited IP dispute is ridiculous. That said, it’s less clear what RAZBAM's role in all of this really is, but they absolutely share the responsibility of resolving the dispute on their end.

I am not blaming RAZBAM for going public about this dispute, this is probably the one thing RAZBAM did right - when a developer is no longer able to support or update their products, informing customers becomes necessary. If they had stayed silent, the backlash would’ve come anyway, just delayed and fueled by confusion.

What bothers me is that a large part of the community seems to have latched onto the idea that “RAZBAM went public, therefore RAZBAM caused the problem.” That’s backward logic. Communicating a crisis isn’t the same as causing one.

However, some RAZBAM developers sharing own information through unofficial channels and therefore causing unnecessary confusion and speculation definitely won't help and ultimately weakens RAZBAM's case. That said, their official statements by R. Zambrano, through their official announcement channel, have been solid and professional so far.

Anyway, I cannot trust any party involved with my money right now, so unless the circumstances of this dispute are either more transparent to the consumers or this dispute is resolved with a (hopefully) good outcome (e.g. RAZBAM modules being properly supported again), I will not buy any more DCS products for now - that is a decision I have taken for myself as a consumer.

Bottom line is: my trust in the DCS ecosystem is shattered, and it's up to ED now, as the main developer and the party ultimately responsible for the direction DCS takes, to earn that trust back.

[cfrag]

Just now, msi1411 said:

my trust in the DCS ecosystem is shattered, and it's up to ED now, as the main developer and the party ultimately responsible for the direction DCS takes, to earn that trust back.

I feel this is the sensible approach. I don't buy modules from Raz, Heatblur or Ugra. We buy "DCS" modules from ED, and ED is the sole arbiter of the products they sell to me. So when their house gets in disarray, I expect them to get it in order, and regain the trust and respect that they risked (and lost) by some of their suppliers. I haven't forgotten the Hawk, and I daresay that my Mudhen, Harrier, Mirage, Farmer and Falklands will be bitter pills to swallow. I'm hoping that ED learns and takes the appropriate steps to safeguard their customer's investments in ED's future. I am disappointed that it has come to this, and I'm not interested to hear who is to blame. I want ED to pick themselves up, and repair the (IMHO significant) damage to their reputation.

 

[LordOrion]

20 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I feel this is the sensible approach. I don't buy modules from Raz, Heatblur or Ugra. We buy "DCS" modules from ED, and ED is the sole arbiter of the products they sell to me. So when their house gets in disarray, I expect them to get it in order, and regain the trust and respect that they risked (and lost) by some of their suppliers. I haven't forgotten the Hawk, and I daresay that my Mudhen, Harrier, Mirage, Farmer and Falklands will be bitter pills to swallow. I'm hoping that ED learns and takes the appropriate steps to safeguard their customer's investments in ED's future. I am disappointed that it has come to this, and I'm not interested to hear who is to blame. I want ED to pick themselves up, and repair the (IMHO significant) damage to their reputation.

 

I pay you so I blame you.

Your approach is a bit too simplistic my friend.

ED is trying to "get in order is house" as you said, however the problem does not depend on them alone.

Edited April 17 by LordOrion

[Dragon1-1]

48 minutes ago, Aapje said:

If ED cannot uphold their obligations because of a contract violation by Razbam, then ED can try to get compensation from Razbam, but this has nothing to do with their obligations towards their customers.

Which is exactly what they're doing. That's why they're refunding the Mudhen, too. They made a promise, and relied on RAZBAM to keep this promise. They are no longer able to do so because of things that are out of their hands, so they're giving our money back.

49 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I'm actually way more even-handed, because I don't take either side. But of course that looks like bias, to those who themselves are biased.

Look up the golden mean fallacy. You are not even-handed, and you're giving way too much credit to a guy with a history of pulling such stunts. You're engaging in both-sideism while one side is clearly in the wrong, since it's quite clear that RAZBAM were the ones who breached the contract in first place, not that ED had suddenly pulled payments for no reason.

53 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This is not at all the case here. ED apparently believes that their damages are greater than all the money they withheld, so they can use that money to pay for their damages. Razbam has no obligations that they can meet, to get that money, since the alleged damages cannot be undone, presumably. The way they might get (some of) that money is through a judgement or a settlement, if it gets decided that the damages are less than what was withheld.

And you're saying I take speculation as fact. Do you realize just how many leaps of logic you are making here? 

If the "air force sim" story is true, then RAZBAM very much has obligations they can meet to get the money, and the damages aren't done, since this simulator they offered to make doesn't seem to have come into existence. There's no evidence that ED is claiming the money as damages, either, and I don't know where that idea comes from. They could ask for damages for reputational harm they undergone and for disruption to their business caused by RAZBAM pulling the modules. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that whoever wanted that professional sim has abandoned the idea by that point. So yeah, this is a situation in which the money is most likely in escrow, but we don't know that for sure.

The most likely scenario is, Ron approached the government to make a sim, got found out by ED, who then froze payments, and instead of saying "mea culpa, won't happen again" has gone on an ego trip fighting them over this. Given his past behavior and the other information available, this is the most likely explanation. It is also possible that ED did not use escrow and unilaterally grabbed the payments effectively as damages, expecting that to make RAZBAM stop the violation, which Ron then blew out of proportion and took to court. This would be more scummy, but it still comes back to RAZBAM only being "victims" of their own FAFO.

[cfrag]

39 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

I pay you so I blame you.

Almost. "I pay for your service, and I blame you when your service isn't up to standard". 

39 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

Your approach is a bit too simplistic my friend.

Maybe. But that's how business is done.

It's called 'accountability', and when it comes to DCS, there's only ED. It's not difficult: Who do you pay? Because that is your service provider. End of story. Don't add complexity. I work for a large company. When I screw up, the company won't tell their customers that silly cfrag's got a DCS addiction and therefore delivered sub-par services, and that they should understand. No, they'll take in on the chin, fire me (and probably sue me), and then try to regain their reputation with customers.   

Edited April 17 by cfrag

[LordOrion]

22 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Almost. "I pay for your service, and I blame you when your service isn't up to standard". 

Maybe. But that's how business is done.

It's called 'accountability', and when it comes to DCS, there's only ED. It's not difficult: Who do you pay? Because that is your service provider. End of story. Don't add complexity. I work for a large company. When I screw up, the company won't tell their customers that silly cfrag's got a DCS addiction and therefore delivered sub-par services, and that they should understand. No, they'll take in on the chin, fire me (and probably sue me), and then try to regain their reputation with customers.   

So, what should ED do in your opinion (I'm curious) ? 

Edited April 17 by LordOrion

[cfrag]

Just now, LordOrion said:

So, what should ED do in your opinion (I'm curiouis) ? 

I really don't know, and I still expect a lot, because I am deeply disappointed and saddened by what happened.

So, some silly ideas off the top of my head: Start working hard on getting back our trust in them. Make sure that in the future, this can't happen again or is detected early, with smaller consequences for the customers. Make processes inside ED more transparent, increase communication about how ED strives to better itself internally, improve communication to their customers and community, work harder on making DCS the clear prime choice for customers, show proof that ED will be there to help them, not holding the bag. Internally, maybe install processes that can better mitigate and deal with instances like this and related issues. It's not the first time that something like this happens, and it probably won't be the last time. It's how a company handles themselves and their customers in such a crisis that defines their future. I don't know how they should do it, I know and care too little about their processes and inner workings. All I know is that I want ED to become better and learn from this experience, and show us all that they mean it. It's not my business and not my place to tell them how they should do it, because 99% of my thoughts on this is probably pure BS. All I know is that I'll probably know it's working when I see it.

Being accountable isn't easy. That's why it engenders respect when it's done right.

[Nightdare]

4 hours ago, msi1411 said:

What bothers me is that a large part of the community seems to have latched onto the idea that “RAZBAM went public, therefore RAZBAM caused the problem.” That’s backward logic. Communicating a crisis isn’t the same as causing one.

 

That's a rather naïve opinion and a wrong conclusion of you in this matter

Until RB went public there was no 'crisis', it's only their bombshell (without any actual backstory) that created a public one

You talk about backward logic when RB's outcry was taken on faith without reasons, RB never answered why they weren't getting paid, that reason was given by ED

And I'll give you a reminder that RB never actually made an official statement after that which denied/contradicted ED's reaction to their suspension of work because 'circumstances'

 

I will agree that this going public would be inevitable

 

 

3 hours ago, LordOrion said:

I pay you so I blame you.

Your approach is a bit too simplistic my friend.

 

Uhm, no, it's as basic as that, our money went to ED, plus the fact that they are withholding RB funds (YOUR money FOR RB products) makes them responsible regardless

They also aren't refunding RB payments (REAL money), but handing out ED Shop credit

ED can't play a game of 'either/or' here, if they aren't responsible and just a 'middleman', then giving store credit is theft and they simply need to refund the actual payment

 

 

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

I work for a large company. When I screw up, the company won't tell their customers that silly cfrag's got a DCS addiction and therefore delivered sub-par services, and that they should understand. No, they'll take in on the chin, fire me (and probably sue me), and then try to regain their reputation with customers.   

Then again, you also don't start calling your boss' customers to tell them your boss is a dick, when you get your ass chewed out for screwing up the job

Edited April 17 by Nightdare

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Then again, you also don't start calling your boss' customers to tell them your boss is a dick, when you get your ass chewed out for screwing up the job

If I was that stupid, my ex-company's lawyers would have a field day. I'd be fired on the spot if I wasn't already. For cause. 

[Tank50us]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

I really don't know, and I still expect a lot, because I am deeply disappointed and saddened by what happened.

So, some silly ideas off the top of my head: Start working hard on getting back our trust in them. Make sure that in the future, this can't happen again or is detected early, with smaller consequences for the customers. Make processes inside ED more transparent, increase communication about how ED strives to better itself internally, improve communication to their customers and community, work harder on making DCS the clear prime choice for customers, show proof that ED will be there to help them, not holding the bag. Internally, maybe install processes that can better mitigate and deal with instances like this and related issues. It's not the first time that something like this happens, and it probably won't be the last time. It's how a company handles themselves and their customers in such a crisis that defines their future. I don't know how they should do it, I know and care too little about their processes and inner workings. All I know is that I want ED to become better and learn from this experience, and show us all that they mean it. It's not my business and not my place to tell them how they should do it, because 99% of my thoughts on this is probably pure BS. All I know is that I'll probably know it's working when I see it.

Being accountable isn't easy. That's why it engenders respect when it's done right.

Yeah, answering that question is hard for us because we're NOT Nick, and we don't get a say in how he runs ED, or how Ron runs Razbam.

Legally speaking however, there are plenty of options. One of which is like I've stated: Get the licenses and assets from Razbam, and kick RB to the curb. And yes, they could do this legally as they most likely at this point have Boeing and their legal team on speed dial (IE, getting the rights to the Harrier and Mudhen would be a sinch). They could probably hold onto the Mig19 and negotiate something with the OEM once a certain..... disagreement is resolved.... and they could probably call up Aerges and ask if they'd take the license for the M2000.

From what I understand, RB is the only company right now that wasn't originally required to hand over the assets and source code in the event of a dispute like this. The others are, so if any of them stepped out of line they'd be in deep.

Now, as for HOW they could do this, well, I'm not a lawyer. But just like any legal dispute with stuff like this, offers can be made and items placed in legal documents for damages. Happens all the time in divorces XD

[AndyJWest]

8 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

...they most likely at this point have Boeing and their legal team on speed dial...

There is no chance whatsoever that Boeing would be the slightest bit interested in getting involved in this mess. 

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

There is no chance whatsoever that Boeing would be the slightest bit interested in getting involved in this mess. 

No, that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm saying they could call up Boeing and get the licenses transferred over once this mess is over pretty easily

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

Uhm, no, it's as basic as that, our money went to ED, plus the fact that they are withholding RB funds (YOUR money FOR RB products) makes them responsible regardless

They also aren't refunding RB payments (REAL money), but handing out ED Shop credit

ED can't play a game of 'either/or' here, if they aren't responsible and just a 'middleman', then giving store credit is theft and they simply need to refund the actual payment

The money ED sets aside for payments to 3rd party devs is likely an escrow account that they legally cant reallocate until the dispute is cleared by the courts. Just because ED gave you store credits doesnt mean they were allowed to give you actual funds, and just so you're aware that they generally dont even give you store credit or a refund AT ALL after a certain length of time has passed after you made your purchase. They certainly didnt with the Hawk T.1A. Count yourself lucky you got store credit. Razbam doenst -nor ever has- given store credit for any of their products outside of ED. OR REFUNDS outside of a DCMA obligated length of time.

Edited April 17 by Hammer1-1

[Pipe]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Which is exactly what they're doing. That's why they're refunding the Mudhen, too. They made a promise, and relied on RAZBAM to keep this promise. They are no longer able to do so because of things that are out of their hands, so they're giving our money back.

I have not heard of anyone getting money back, and don’t even start with the store credit crap. I paid for the SE early access and fully expected RB would get their share of what I paid, allowing for continued updates and features added. Now if I’m not getting the SE plus updates and new features I want my money back not store credit. I’m not saying RB is not at fault, I am saying I believe ED could have handled this differently, in a way that kept things status quo and quiet. It does make me wonder if ED is actually standing on legal high ground in this dispute. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

Ron did choose to allow ED to keep selling the modules for a year, even though ED was pocketing all the money from the sales. You are ignoring that this situation is much better for ED than for Razbam, since ED was getting all that money, and Razbam got nothing.

They didn't pocket that money. They were kept up as to provide back pay once things were settled, this has been stated multiple times. That's why they kept them up for sale. Why else would the contract stipulate that and then leave the decision with Razbam?

[Aapje]

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Which is exactly what they're doing. That's why they're refunding the Mudhen, too. They made a promise, and relied on RAZBAM to keep this promise. They are no longer able to do so because of things that are out of their hands, so they're giving our money back.

As some other person said, this is not true. They are giving out store credit, which is not the same as a refund. It is highly likely that ED is violating consumer law in many regions by doing this.

Also, I think that ED was in the wrong for selling the Razbam modules for over a year without explaining the risks that customers are running when purchasing those modules, and for the F15-E to still be listed as early access, even though development of the module was stopped at that point, with no guarantee of that continuing. For comparison, Steam explicitly notes that Early Access games are not guaranteed to be finished, and they tell you if an EA game hasn't had an update in a long time.

This is exactly what I mean by bias. Ron gets blamed for what he communicates and does, but those same people don't hold ED accountable for their communication and actions to customers, which are far from perfect too.

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Look up the golden mean fallacy. You are not even-handed, and you're giving way too much credit to a guy with a history of pulling such stunts. You're engaging in both-sideism while one side is clearly in the wrong, since it's quite clear that RAZBAM were the ones who breached the contract in first place, not that ED had suddenly pulled payments for no reason.

So where is your hard evidence that (only) Razbam breached the contract and if so, the extent to which they did? Note that a mere statement by one of the parties with no details and no hard evidence to back that up, doesn't count.

And I never said that ED had pulled the payments for no reason, nor that Razbam didn't breach the contract. So you are implying that I claimed all kinds of things that I in fact never wrote.

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

And you're saying I take speculation as fact. Do you realize just how many leaps of logic you are making here?

Which speculation am I taking as fact? Please actually be clear about what you are referring to.

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If the "air force sim" story is true, then RAZBAM very much has obligations they can meet to get the money, and the damages aren't done, since this simulator they offered to make doesn't seem to have come into existence. There's no evidence that ED is claiming the money as damages, either, and I don't know where that idea comes from.

If the leaked Letter of Demand is real, then the allegation is that a third party (whose name is redacted) signed a contract with a certain military to deliver that simulator, not Razbam. And Razbam is alleged to be part of this contract, by delivering the Super Tucano for use by that military, in exchange for a data package. Keep in mind that these are all just allegations made by one party, so even if the document is real, that doesn't mean that those allegations are true, or that the other side doesn't have allegations of their own that would not be in this document.

According to the document, ED offered a resolution whereby Razbam would still develop the Super Tucano, but for the military side of ED.

However, the document also states that ED had to put in a lot of effort and make concessions for this resolution, and that they were thus harmed, compared to a situation where the regular procedure would have been followed. The document states that the contract between ED and Razbam allows for ED to claim damages if the contract is breached, and that they are withholding funds to cover their damages.

Note that from a legal point of view, withholding money to cover damages is very different from withholding money until the other side makes good on their obligations, but you seem to conflate the two.

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The most likely scenario is, Ron approached the government to make a sim, got found out by ED, who then froze payments, and instead of saying "mea culpa, won't happen again" has gone on an ego trip fighting them over this. Given his past behavior and the other information available, this is the most likely explanation. It is also possible that ED did not use escrow and unilaterally grabbed the payments effectively as damages, expecting that to make RAZBAM stop the violation, which Ron then blew out of proportion and took to court. This would be more scummy, but it still comes back to RAZBAM only being "victims" of their own FAFO.

Didn't you blame me earlier in this same comment that I "take speculation as fact"? Now you are doing the same thing, but I guess it's different when you do it...

Although to be fair, you didn't do the exact same thing as me, because I base my theory on a document that seems legitimate to me, while you just seem to be speculating.

[Aapje]

12 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They didn't pocket that money. They were kept up as to provide back pay once things were settled, this has been stated multiple times.

Just because people keep repeating something with zero evidence, doesn't make it true. Please give me actual evidence, if you have it.

Also, back pay means money owned to an employee and it doesn't seem to be an appropriate word to use at all.

12 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

That's why they kept them up for sale.

This is not at all a logical conclusion. If ED believes that Razbam caused $ x amount of damages, then they can choose to pocket the money from the sales until $ x amount has been reached.

The only way that Razbam would get (part of) that money, is if there is an agreement or legal judgement that states that ED is entitled to less than what they have earned during this period on Razbam module sales.

12 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Why else would the contract stipulate that and then leave the decision with Razbam?

I have no idea what you are referring to here. Please be more clear. What contract are you talking about, what part of that contract, and in what way does the decision lie with Razbam?

[LordOrion]

10 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Just because people keep repeating something with zero evidence, doesn't make it true. Please give me actual evidence, if you have it.

Also, back pay means money owned to an employee and it doesn't seem to be an appropriate word to use at all.

We already discussed that many pages ago: even if ED was still selling RB modules does not mean they can keep RB share: once this dispute will be settled, ED will have to give RB his part of the revenues.

There is no need of evidences for this, that's just how commerce laws works in all democratic contry of this planet.