This might not be the right thread for whatr I am about to say, and will probably annoy more than one person. That said, please bear in mind that this is no way critical of any party, nor casting blame or aspersion on any party concerned (bar the usual internet posting suspects who only served to inflame a situation)
Regards the Hodges - Elbox dispute, there is a very, very good reason why companies use managers to enter negotiations, rather than technical staff.
They know what they are doing, and they speak the same language.
Simply put, it seperates the commercial aspects of a relationship, from the underlying service/product/technical broohaa. They [probably] neither know nor care about the underlying technical wizardry, but they do know about detail work such as revenue, cost of support, pricing, profit margins, market segments, ie all the commercial apsects. And relationship management; they serve as insulation between [potentialy rival] groups of staff, such as developers who may be unhappy over a decision to include the others' product/service/component over their own.*
And then agree a legally binding written contract defining all aspects of the underlying commercial relationship.
This is important - it superseedes any marketing statements about a companies intentions, culture, history, and so forth.
And to be honest, both sides are trying to get the best deal for their company. The definition of "best" varies, but does not always mean a compromise that neither side is wholly happy with; often, one side will make a short-term concession in the interests of a more attractive longer term relationship (as an example, look at the Marriot Hotel after 9/11, and how they helped one of the major financial players with office room, I can give many more examples).
Chris, reading your soapopera page, I think there were several times when things were "lost in translation": Elbox had commercial expectations, which perhaps you missed, and likewise didn't appreciate that they were negotiating with an individual developer.
Perhaps maybe you realise some of this - *for example at the start you apologise for unprofessional and "..and individual with emotions and not representing a company". This is a prime expample of when using relationship/account managers - who are not connected with the underlying product - insulate the relationship from the emotions of those who are deeply involved at the "coal face", seperating commerce from work, as it were.
I don't think there would be much milage in identifying examples of where the relationship went rocky, but certainly its true to say that
1. Neither party asked enough questions, I suspect due to completely differing reasons.
2.There were too many occasions where effort was spent in recriminations rather than agreeing a course of action to solve an issue.
3. At times, both parties proceeded on assumptions without actually checking those assumptions were valid. In some cases, those assumptions were quite minor to that party, but quite major to the other.
Just my 5cents. Shame really, as had some of the sticking points been identified and dealt with earlier, I think this would have been a beneficial agreement for both Elbox and yourself.
