Hello everyone, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce myself, my name is Karen and I am DSB Design and Sigma Simulation Products silent partner, administrator, PR representative and acting CEO. Firstly to help clear things up and give my information a sense of continuity, I would like to address the

To all of the community I apologise to all of you for what has happened in the last 24 hours. Whilst I am terribly sorry that Mr. Barendregt is upset, as we are not the XML code writers (clearly stated in every email with Mr. Barendregt and our manual), and this is a serious accusation of alleged copyright violation, we can not comment further (as per my solicitors advice) on the legalities of this matter. I have handed it over to my solicitor as we are NOT the XML code writers and at this time legal advice needs to be quickly obtained and started on this issue. I will state clearly though to you, and to Mr. Barendregt that this situation, these allegations and the confusion that has happened was in no way pre-meditated by any of the following: DSB Design (distribution), Sigma Simulation Products (distribution), David Brice and Karen Love (individuals). It is not a practice that DSB Design, Sigma Simulation Products or I, David Brice, make of using any coding, parts, gauges, shells of designs that could be considered suspect. We source contracts with our contributors and we request that they sign the contracts. I acted on good faith with my contributor about the XML codes, I also acted in good faith with Mr. Barendregt when we explained to him we were investigating the claim. Whilst he was not seeking a legal battle, I felt that this warranted serious investigation and advice, as did Ms. Love. It has come out of the woodwork that there are people dissatisfied with parts of DSB Design and there are allegations that Sigma Simulation Products and David Brice are possible fronts as businesses. At this time I am going on record to say that I am David Brice, legally registered trader of DSB Design and Sigma Simulation Products, these details are easily verifiable (as per Ms. Love

Ms. Love, Mr. Brice,As a first reaction, I am very glad to see that at least one part of this mistery appears to be solved; I am sure you will allow me some time to digest all this information before I respond.Part of my reponse will be public here, as I feel I owe this to everyone that has supported me, part of it can be in private via Email if you so wish. You have my Email address.Regards, Rob Barendregt

Bump

RobSome further facts that may be helpful.The Australian Business Names register shows that DSB Design, DSB Direct, and Sigma Simulation Products are all trading names of David Richard Brice who is registered as an Individual/Sole Trader. His registration number is 54 044 292 336 and he is located in the State of Victoria with postcode 3095. His ABN status is active from 1 July 2005 and was last modified on 11 July 2005, so it's up to date.The State of Victoria has a Consumer Affairs Unit.http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000...1=Home~&2=~&3=~This Unit promotes promotes a safe consumer environment by: - providing information and education on the rights and responsibilities of businesses and consumers - registering and licensing business, - helping in resolving disputes, and ensuring compliance with the law. The State of Victoria also has Fair Trading Act 1999.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...act/fta1999117/Part 4 Division 3 of this Act covers non-contact sales agreements, which cover internet sales.Section 68 defines a non-contact agreement. Section 69 sets out the requirements to be provided including the full business address of the supplier, and Section 70 makes not complying with Section 69 a punishable offence and makes the agreement unenforceable by a supplier who fails to comply with Section 69. Section 71 enables the purchaser to cancel the agreement within 10 days. The period of 10 days cannot be overridden by the agreement.Section 73 says that if the agreement is cancelled the supplier must return any money paid to the supplier and the purchaser must return the goods. Part 7 Section 98 creates the office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and Section 100 gives the Director powers to prosecute offenders.I trust these facts may be helpful to you and to others who have purchased from DSB Direct.

When I first read this thread by Rob, I never had any doubt he had been slighted by DSB and DSB had, one way or another, used freeware in their payware. I also knew right then I would probably not buy the Harrier, but this was moot since I wasn't going to buy it anyway.Now that DSB, through Karen, has made an attempt to clarify the situation, I think it would be prudent to wait and see what happens without irrationally jumping off the deep end as some have seen fit to do with their comments. True, DSB may be guilty of attempting to put some spin on the issue. However, two things stand out: if, as Karen says, they had a contract with an outside source, then perhaps DSB is being somewhat victimized in a sense, too. Also, posts here and events tend to unfold very rapidly and if Karen was unable to contact David for even half a day, they would suddenly find themselves far behind the curve and the damage already done.It appears, however, that over 90% of the negative posts are coming from people who do NOT own their own distribution/production/design businesses for profit in the flightsim add-on market. I would guess, also not being in that field, there are many nuances that Karen/DSB must negotiate that we are unaware of.As a business owner in another, unrelated field, I can certainly guarantee that. Business owners are beholden to so many, sometimes, it's a wonder we do it at all!I suggest we now wait and see how DSB plans on remedying this issue, and making good on what is possibly just a very drastic mistake on their part. Let's see if they make good on it, before we continue to condemn them. My only suggestion to DSB is make it a very, very good remedy. Make the wronged parties happy, and then some.After all, it might be best to remember that this may have happened to anyone.Patience, now.Dan

First I would like to say thank you to Karen and David for commenting here and keeping the community up to date on this issue, I know that they would probably prefer that this was kept between the parties in question but sometimes it is better to inform your customers. As I said before I am glad that this came out when it did as I was about to puchase the Harrier, for now those plans are on hold pending the outcome of this interesting situation. As a business owner myself I can't help but feel for Karen and David to a degree but ultimately they are responsible for the products that they sell so they will have to work this thing out. I do not think that they knowingly sold the pirated software, I think that they were probably lied to but since their supplier was under contract they have legal recourse against him or her. I have to agree with Dan in that DSB, once their investigation is complete and things are found as they seem to be, make things right to restore their name as it has been severely damaged by this case. It is too bad that they have to take the fall for their supplier but this is the way in the business world. I do hope that DSB will in turn go after their supplier so they are not the sole losers in this. I realize that I am so completely removed from this situation that my facts my not be correct but these are my ideas on the matter based on what I know and so you have to take them with a grain of salt. I do hope that this can be resolved in a matter where all parties will benefit from this terrible issue and I hope that it will open some peoples eyes and maybe prevent this from happening again. Good luck to all,Philip Olsonhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

Indeed Dan.These are complicated and contentious issues.Like you I appreciate the fact that we have been in chargeof numerous employees and all the problems that entails; "Mama Mia" of course, but we represent the organization andwe have to accept the responsibility.Having stated that, we are entitled to due process and thereason for this of course is that we do not employ a policeforce and examine our employee activities 24/7.Yes, eventually we discover the "rotten apples" but as alwaysafter the damage is done.-------------------------The point in this situation in my view is that we have an instancewhereby the 2 parties concerned can, with good will, reach anamicable solution.Unfortunate position to be in, but certainly resolvable without anydraconian demands I'm certain.------------------------------Privacy is essential obviously.Regards, JAHamilton - Los Angeles.

Hello All, Let me say that since I was the first one to respond to the original post, I want to make a statement at this time.We have read the original, and now have Karen's reply, which lends me to believe that some effort is being made to make things right in this arena.Because of this, it is felt by this writer that ample time be given to both to sort this situation out -- and with luck, all will end up satisfied with those details.My reply to the original post was to get a response, and we now have one -- let's see what develops.Best to all,Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Something just doesn't seem right. Maybe because I'm direct and to the point. It seems that since this made it public at AVSIM. Somebody is trying to do some damage control. I feel there was no reason this couln't have been told in a private email. I had seen it was due to Mr. Brice not being available but you could have stated some of this in a CONFIDENTIAL email.JMO

Ms. Love , Mr. Brice,As said in my first reply, I am glad that at least one issue (the "DSB Design" organisational part and who-is-who) appears to be cleared now.Because, in view of the unfortunate miscommunication from Ms. Love to me about, a.o. the role of Mr. Brice in DSB Design and the identity of the author of those Emails, made it highly unlikely for me that any of the other statements in these Emails were in fact true. Hence my action here on AVSIM, which was really my only option left; since, as explained, a legal procedure was/is not an option for me.But Ms. Love explained this organisational part now, and apologised for her miscommunication; which is good enough for me.BUT, I deliberately used the words "appears to be cleared".Although I DO admit that there are no discrepancies between what Ms. Love communicated to me via Email and the statements made by Ms. Love and Mr. Brice in their first posts, there is no way for me (or others) to verify that THIS is the whole truth. (1)Which is not caused by their statements, but an unfortunate side-effect of using the Internet for communication, in all its aspects.However, personally I am inclined to believe it, because, from an objective point-of-view, I have no reason anymore to assume otherwise. Except that my objectivity in this issue is not trivial, as you might expect when being in my shoes.So, in view of everything that has happened and in the light of (1), I would have expected a business like DSB Design to do the utmost ( and more) to regain the confidence of all their (potential) customers, because in this Flightsim business "trust", "reliabilty" and "reputation" are extremely important factors; as everyone will agree.And that, although not a current customer, includes the person that started this; i.c. ME.And to that end, I would appreciate to see a few more things clarified.1. Why is the identity of this "contributor" that committed the alleged copyright violation of my work, such a mistery and protected by legal contracts ?? When everybody that owns the Sigma Simulation Harrier, can (supposedly) conclude from the manual that it must be "C.S." (since Mr. Brice states that he is NOT the code writer).2. As a business, why didn't you immediately suspend sales of this product when you were accused of copyright violation ??Especially since:- My claim was well-prepared, and well-documented.- As you admitted yourself, my claim (although it appearantly should not have been made against DSBDesign / Sigma Simulation / Mr. Brice, but to your "contributor") COULD be true. - In my book, a business is responsible for it's subcontracters / contributors. If not legally (which I do suspect) then at least morally.As I wrote in another post, I do believe in the statement "Anyone is innocent untill proven guilty".But that is a formal, legal statement. There is also something called "Common Sense"; denying that the "evidence" I mailed you can only have been written by one person is NOT; as Mr. Brice, an intelligent person WITH knowledge of .xml coding (see 3), won't argue other then for strictly legal reasons. 3. If you are so convinced that your "contributor" is speaking the truth (and therefore must assume I am lying), why is Mr Brice re-writing my alleged copywrited code ??4. Obviously, Mr. Brice is a far better .xml and gauge specialist than I am.Assuming that:- His statement is correct that he is NOT the person responsible for the VSTOL/EFFECT Controller gauge code, but your "contributor" is,- His solution won't be inferiour to mine, because your customers would have a real problem with that,- And your statement is correct that you will release this update within 24 hours,I have a problem to believe that someone can "re-write" simular, tweaked, and tested code in in only 2-3 working days, whereas it took ME more then 150 hours.Any .xml programmer / FDE specialist that would study this, can conclude that the entire solution for my VSTOL solution (the right combination of trim setting, flaps definition, afterburner thrust plus related gauge control) is quite complex.In all honesty, this was one of the most complex things I ever created.So I must a bit stupid that it has taken ME so many hours :-(5. How does DSB Design ensure that the alleged violated code is actually removed from the PCs of it's customers installed base ??Are users enforced to do this ??And if not: why releasing an update for the installed base ??6. Instead of (IMO) hiding behind the legal contract with your "contributor", and spending lots of money on your "legal advisor" to continue investigating (as you stated) whether either MY claim is correct (and therefore your "contributor" has lied to you) or vice versa: why do/did you not opt for the trivial solution of trying to get a private agreement with me ?? I can assure you, knowing the usual fees of "legal advisors" in the Netherlands, that would be a lot cheaper; the costs of negative publicity you have now, aside.7. In which timeframe can I expect the outcome of the promissed investigation by your legal advisor ??Because, being a ProjectManager by profession, I do have a problem with terms like "considerable time" (as you used in your Email communication to me). Because, I assume, we are all interested in the outcome; that is, I am for sure.Now, I don't run a business myself; but IF I had a respectable business, "common sense" and "business sense" would dictate ME to:- Make sure that I didn't release an update that, again, could be questioned.- Let this issue not escalate further, unless I was absolutely sure that the outcome of my legal advisor's investigation was in my favour.- Use the oppertunity to turn this negative publicity into a positive one.- Make sure these questions are answered honestly. Either privately or publically.Now, I do realise there's a big time difference between Australia and The Netherlands; so I'll give you every oppertunity to react (if you so wish); either here in the forum, or via Email.Regards, Rob Barendregt

Does this mean that this topic can now go off line and this thread be locked? Seems like enough adults have shown up to manage the business relationship privately.Eric

Agreed EricRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Sheesh! Talk about beating a dead horse! Get a grip Rob.

WHY DID SIMMARKET wait almost 4 days before pulling it?>Hi Jose,>>Well, I did of course write to Simmarket.>But had NO REPLY yet (after 3 days).>>See attached picture of my report (for obvious reasons I>editted out most of the Ticket Id). Someone might get the idea>of editting it :-(>>To make it a little more "mysterious":>In this tollticket I refer to a "Max Monroe" , not "David>Brice".>See the signature on this page.>http://www.dsbdesign.com/harrier.htm>>Unlike the announcement on the News page>(http://www.dsbdesign.com)>done by David Brice.>>Which initially was my first "confusion": who to communicate>with at DSB Design ??>>There is probably a lot more to reveal on this "mystery".>But as said, I will state only facts. You may draw conclusions>:-)>>Cheers, Rob>>>>>Here is the Trouble ticket image, see for yourself.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/121958.jpgThis is very suspect. From Rob's post he posted an image of a Trouble ticket advising Simmarket of the violation and it appears that simmarket blew him off until this thread appeared.This to me means simmarket only pulled it due to this thread, and not because of the Violation, in my opinion.This is no way for a commercial entity to treat Rob or us.Look at the trouble ticket. Rob sent it on Thursday July 7th, 2005. The file was not pulled until Sunday, and he stated he received no response.Why was that?Why did simmarket ignore Rob's notification?This whole thing is only about one thing, In my opinion, dollars.SimMarket should not sell DSB's products at all, in my opinion, and need to explain why they ignored Rob's claim, only acting when it became Public.Those of you who desire this thread to be closed should look at what transpired here.I also still am very suspect of DSB, max, Sigma, david, Karen, whoever they claim to be today. Rewriting an xml code from scratch in 3 days. I doubt it. Misleading consumers by using fake names, why lie?Of course when you have the referenced code already, must have been easy to cut it up.The reaction of DSb is still pathetic, as is the silence of other developers and distributors in this event.It was only the public outing of this event that finally caused simmarket to act. Interesting they waited until then.As to the identity of the "contributor", DSB can keep him/her/it a secret if they like, but your integrity in this issue is GONE, in my opinion.I have never seen such backpedaling ever in this industry. It's somebody else's fault, we only make the money as long as we can and as fast as we can.I suggest consumers look elsewhere and boycott both simmarket and DSB/Sigma for their behavior in this event.They took the MINIMUM steps to try to make this go away, which tells me that as commercial endeavors , they could care less about the community and only care about themselves.Now of course, some will come in here, and state oh, they did the right thing and all. You think so, I don't, I think they blew this from the start and continue to do so.Send your money elsewhere to reputable developers who care about the community, care about stopping piracy and don't try to shove it under the community's rug as if it never happened.As for DSB, nice how they put in all this legal mumbo jumbo claims as if they are doing the right thing.Well DSB, in another thread, it states this about the Country you do business in:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...act/fta1999117/Part 4 Division 3 of this Act covers non-contact sales agreements, which cover Internet sales.Section 68 defines a non-contact agreement.Section 69 sets out the requirements to be provided including the full business address of the supplier, and Section 70 makes not complying with Section 69 a punishable offence and makes the agreement unenforceable by a supplier who fails to comply with Section 69."WHERE IS THE BUSINESS ADDRESS....Where is the NameWhere is the Phone NumberFor an ALLEGED Company claiming legal reasons for not disclosing things you would think that following the laws of the same country they claim would be important on their list.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...999117/s69.htmlThat link seems pretty clear to me.Face it folks, in my opinion they are trying to pull the sheets over our eyes and make it go away without any repercussions for their actions here.As a Community, are you willing to let this behavior simply go silently into their next product. DSb keeps selling the Harrier, Simmarket won't give refunds, and Rob simply gets taken advantage of just like the community with these charades by DSB and SimMarket.I have also listed a viable solution to this mess in my first post for this event, which while some may not like my comments, at least I contributed a viable solution.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...74&page=#263425Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]