I'm delighted to see that Peter Wild is still around and that he decided not to sell his stake in Castle Technology Ltd. I would reply directly to his post, but then my post might get a bit lost with the new Drobe structuring of comments.
Anyway, I see that Peter stills seems to have the same mis-understandings as he did in 2004. I am quite sure he recalls the meeting where I was able to correct a number of his simple errors with regard to RISCOS Ltd's rights.
Moving on, I note that Peter said:
"Given that Castle has licensced its RISC OS IPR for use in several Digital TV products worth many millions of pounds to the licencees, I'm quite certain Aaron would have immediately received some communications from these licencees lawyer's if anyone believed there was even a minute shred of evidence to support what he is claiming. Go figure.
Indeed. Under the paperwork negotiated between RISCOS Ltd and E14 a licence was granted back to E14 for the use of RISCOS Ltd's IPR in set top boxes and thin clients. I pressume that Castle have inherited these rights. As such Castle were perfectly entitled to produce further batches of exisiting products for Pace.
Using RISCOS Ltd's IPR in this way was entirely correct, but does not indicate any form of underlying ownership on Castle's part. I refer Peter to clause 3.6 a (ii) in the agreement between E14 and RISCOS Ltd.