I thank Peter Wild for his long and detailed posting as it presents a number of opportunities to broaden the general discussion.
With regard to the "new agreement". Indeed a lot of time was spent negotiating this. I refer Peter to the communications in the few weeks after the negotiation and the meeting at Eversheds. As he will no doubt recall it was mutually agreed by both parties to abandon this agreement. I prefer not to embarass Castle Technology Ltd, or its directors, by going into further detail.
This does raise one very important question. If Castle had purchased everything, then why would a new agreement have been needed? Why would such an agreement need to say that "all IPR is assigned to Castle"? The only reason I can think of at the moment is that under the original agreements such IPR was not assigned to Castle.
It does make one think, doesn't it...
Moving on. Further to the posting earlier from Stoppers. I've dug out my copy of the Peter Wild briefing to Shareholders from the 12th June 2004.
The parapgraph begining "E14 got a..." is very interesting.
Finally I see that Peter Wild claims that "The 1999 licence was terminated; ROL have NO RIGHTS UNDER IT.". Well Peter, if that is the case then the licence back to E14 for the use of derivative works would also have been terminated.
Another question that people might want to ask. Why was it so important that the original agreement between RISCOS Ltd and E14 was destroyed? What does it say?
On a very final note. I am very disapointed that this is turning out this way. Having discovered the real situation all RISCOS Ltd wanted to do was correct it and provide ROOL with an agreement to let them do what they already do and more besides. I am greatly sorry that it's ending up like this.