Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

Reply to thread

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

"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 embarrass Castle Technology Ltd, or its directors, by going into further detail."

LOL! The only person who could be embarrassed by this tale is Paul Middleton. In the week's after signature Paul decided he didn't like what he'd SIGNED UP TO and tried to change the agreement. Akin to someone exchanging contracts on a house purchase, moving in and then trying to back out cos they didn't like the wallpaper! Castle was categorically not part of any mutual agreement to abandon anything and this agreement continues in full force and effect until and unless it is properly terminated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. It seems ROL was in agreement at the time: look at your own company's press release: [link] not to mention several articles on drobe: [link] (Licence announcement) [link] (ROL Changes name) [link] (SE Show Report - Jack and Paul Q&A). For a brief period ROL even paid royalties as cited in the agreement.

Castle does have ample rights and grounds to terminate this agreement as Aaron well knows. Contrary to the assertions of some, Castle is not being the bad guys here and have allowed ROL to carry on doing what they are doing for more than four years without intervention. That is despite multiple breaches of the licence and continued non payment of royalties by ROL. Aaron would do well to remember that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

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...

If you've read the 2004 licence you don't have to think too hard..... The reason was simple: to create a single merged source tree for RISC OS owned by Castle, and a set of desktop extension module which would be developed by ROL. The IPR ownership was required for the merged source moving forward, not just the pre-exisiting sources. Not difficult now was it?

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

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 paragraph beginning "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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but clause 3.6, which Aaron so helpfully drew to this forum's attention, survives termination. This means any licence to use such derivative works continues and is perpetual so ROL have no means to terminate it. Of course, it's academic anyway; ROL failed to abide by their obligations under this clause so have no rights to any derivative works. Moreover, anything else ROL did own, they assigned ownership of to Castle in the 2004 agreement.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

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?

As I recall the objections were all from ROL's side as it didn't allow you to do what you wanted ;) Not least of all, Virtual Acorn! The 2004 agreement regularised that and was much more favourable to ROL in terms of markets and products it could license.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

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.

And butter wouldn't melt......... The "real situation" is that by making totally false claims about IPR ownership, you were cynically trying to set up a position whereby you hoped ROL could claim some royalties from ROOL's future activities if their work ever attracts commercial users. You were hoping Castle wouldn't notice the game you were playing and you were WRONG! Aaron, you reap what you sow.

I had no wish to get involved in this discussion; I have way better things to do. All I ask is that ROL respect Castle's IPR and the terms of the 2004 licence then work with ROOL for the benefit of RISC OS as a whole. If ROL were to pay Castle some of the royalties they owe for distributing RISC OS, and particularly for distributing Virtual Acorn, that would be nice too :)

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 16/12/08 2:52AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • RiscPC breaks 1.5GHz barrier
    Calm down dear, this is a case mod
     23 comments, latest by flypig on 13/5/04 1:56PM. Published: 12 May 2004

  • Random article

  • ROL release C99 SCL to A9home users
    Testers see future RISC OS 4 features
     16 comments, latest by AMS on 23/4/06 5:58PM. Published: 17 Apr 2006

  • Useful links

    News and media:

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster


    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign

    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "You mean the Drobe website is brain-damaged by design?"
    Page generated in 0.1228 seconds.