I don’t understand what is confusing about that part. If he wasn’t paid for it then what he says is true. If he was paid then it is not true. Clearly DEFCON t

I don’t understand what is confusing about that part. If he wasn’t paid for it then what he says is true. If he was paid then it is not true. Clearly DEFCON thinks they contracted EE to write the fimware. If that is true, and they have a contract saying that EE will deliver the firmware to them, and the firmware developer is also right that they have no contract then the problem is with EE. The firmware dev can still sue DEFCON for distributing his copyrighted work without a license to do so. In turn DEFCON would sue EE. Clearly there are unknowns here to us, but i don’t feel it is particularly confusing.