Castle also said that they wanted to settle the dispute as quickly as possible and have the RISCOS Ltd. sub-licencees (companies that use RISC OS 4, like STD and VirtualAcorn) licensing RISC OS 3.7, an 'early' version of 4, and RISC OS 5 from Castle, so halted products can begin shipping again.
The cynical amongst you will read between the lines and guess that Castle really want people to migrate from RISC OS 4 to RISC OS 5, quite possibly via any means necessary. Castle's spin on the situation is that the market for RISC OS 4 upgrades is barely a thousand users, which for them, just isn't enough - particularly when they're talking of moving RISC OS to newer ARM architectures.
So why bother ? Let ROL die, release RO5 for all legacy and emulation users and this whole license situation is academic. Clearly there's more to this than a few royalty payments. It seems to me, not cynically but realistically given Castle's own statements, that they want ROL out of the way so that they can own the whole RISC OS market (NB RISC OS not RISCOS). However ROL are doing better now than they have for quite a while and if that Omega with an Xscale appears it would make a huge difference. You can argue all you like about, Omega's, Xscales, who should own what , who is the best to develop RISC OS etc etc, but the tactics, in my opinion, are to get rid of a competitor using a legal stick because they can't succeed with the product itself i.e. RO5 vs Select. I've said this elsewhere: I suspect if you were to compare ongoing sales of RO5 vs Select then RO5 would be downwards and Select slightly upwards.