At the end of the day, this is a legal/contract dispute between two businesses. I’d bet that even if they agree on an outcome, there’ll be NDAs all round and an agreed statement to be made giving us no info other than the dispute has been “resolved to the satisfaction of both parties”.
It’s annoying, but it’s the way these things are done. It’s way more annoying when my elected government does it, but that’s touching on politics so I’ll back off there…
Annoying, but true. All we can really infer is that the issue was solved, HB got paid, and moved on.
At least, I’d hope they did. Why would they do the mountain of work in the subsequent time after? They made the F-4 and then expanded to actual offices of their own, I REALLY hope they got paid, for their sake.
EDIT: If there is chicanery on ED’s part, who is willing to bet it’s a clueless legal department?
Clearly states ED is in breach of contract: “Not enough evidence to pass judgment.”
No statement about that issue’s status: “We can infer that they resolved the issue.”
Based on what statement(s) and/or evidence?
It clearly states ED is in breach of contract from HB’s perspective, yes. But, there’s nothing objective about that. We do not know the details of why ED had withheld payment or was unable to provide payment. That is my point. It’s only one side. And, the only thing that we know is that ED was unable/unwilling to provide payment to HB for some reason. That’s all we know, intention very much matters. This is the same standard I held with RB’s own claims. We have no comment from ED as to why this was the case, from what I can ascertain, at the very least.
My inference is one of hope and given that it was apparently resolved. Otherwise, I’d like to ask HB why they continue to work and invest into a platform that isn’t seeing a return for them. The evidence is that HB is still there and has been for 5 years since that message was sent. Why would any contract worker/company stick around for that long if they weren’t being compensated? That makes no sense. HB has expanded, hired more, has offices, and all for something that doesn’t pay them?
That’s just my take away.
We are again posting screenshots of communication of which none of us are part and is considered private by those who are…
We’ve talked about this.
Also, in the end of the day, we don’t know the details here, so please refrain from passing judgment.
For all we know, the only commonality in the ED/HB and ED/RB cases are witholding funds. We know nothing about why…
This is a legal matter between two companies.
No, no need for apologies from anybody.
It’s just that when we relay information, we need to think about who owns that information and why we post it.
A snippet of a private email conversation does not give anybody the whole picture and may very well have been purposely leaked to further an agenda that we know nothing about.
It’s ok to discuss this, of course, but bear in mind that unless you (in general) aren’t the owner of that information, you really don’t know much about it. Link to it. Say that it’s posted on that forum and let them deal with spreading information that clearly shouldn’t have been divulged.
and this could be the problem. we are not just sending them our money randomly. there is some customer-supplier relationship. I mean some culture if you will.
we like what they do but also how they do it. if they change their ways we should have option to quit this contract. but if this is all going behind the closed doors then I can start to feel deceived.
so I agree with @Clutch for now
btw it is naive from ED to try to keep it all behind the closed doors, it will all leak sooner or later
The issue is code related, not certificate related.
There are several instances of GetSystemTimeAsFileTime in the DLL.
It may well be a requirement of some kind of civil settlement. Also, I would be very surprised if any lawyers involved in the process gave any advice other than “shut up about this in public” on either side.
In a litigation process, you have to…
Look, ED may be the devil incarnate or there may very well be reasonable explanatons behind all that’s happening.
Point is, we (the customers) don’t know.
Not really, do you see any other developer publishing their legal issues?
I can tell you it’s more common than you’d think.
When RB visited the ED office, they took a poo in the office bathroom, didn’t flush and blocked up the drain.
See anyone can add to the rumor mill.
I see, but this one already leaked, so there is that
And now I have it from a credible source, that they did!! 
I think that there’s quite a lot of information still hidden from us, don’t you?
And it will stay that way until the involved parties can talk about it, and that may be never…
That’s just how these things are.
If the other rumored bit, about RB using ED’s code in a separate product they sold directly without licensing/paying/involving ED is true, then ED is in the right.
If in fact their code was NOT used, then RB would be in the right.
However, greatest likelihood (if this scenario is indeed true), is that ED believes RB used their code, so they’re right, while RB believes they only used their own and it’s not ED’s business. That would lead to the situation today, where both sides believe the other is in violation of contract. Neither could be operating in bad faith. Sure, RB could be using ED’s code and trying to cover it up, or ED could be aware that the code isn’t theirs but trying to use it as a bargaining chip or something, but I don’t think it’s nearly as likely.
Outside of both sides being allowed to view the code simultaneously to prove it is or isn’t, the only other option would I suppose be a neutral party that is code savvy being allowed to look at it and make a determination that either A) RB overstepped or B) ED assumed incorrectly.
I see the new HB info in two different ways. First it shows that conflicts can be resolved between third parties and thus gives me a little hope that RB and ED can come to an agreement and continue in the DCS universe. But in the same breath the fact that the two largest developers for DCS World, arguably why a significant chunk of the community plays the game would be dealing with non payment issues is deeply concerning. I want to continue supporting 3rd party devs especially like Polychop that have worked so hard to get a new product out but it’s hard to do that in good conscience right now with the current information landscape.
Side note: Since HB has confirmed that this is email is real it gives more credit to the already rumored issues of other third parties having the same or similar issues of non payment by ED.
Double side note: How much does a license for one of these air frames cost? Do these companies even have the option of pulling out. A quick google search shows rumors that licensed cars in Forza for example could be up to 400,000 usd for use of the name, model, logos. Polychops trailers feature a Bell logo prominently. Other companies have given license for their products. These third party devs for DCS may not have any financial choice but to stay. (Disclaimer this is a thought and reality may be different, I would take education on the matter if I’m wrong 
)
It just illustrates that more than one party had a disagreement with ED. It does not in the slightest indicate that the issues are similar. We know so little that we cannot even assert that ED agreed to pay either party in the first place with any kind of certainty, however unlikely that scenario may be.
Well, not sure what I’m supposed to make of this. Surely they are not clocking the render loop.