I find it interesting that David Holden on usenet, and now VirtualAcorn on this thread have both taken to selectively quoting from confidential documents on public forums. This is a clear breach of ROL's obligations under various agreements and Non disclosure agreements. Moreover, I note these comments are being selectively taken from these documents and used out of context. David Holden has already been caught red handed selectively editing old newsgroup quotes in an attempt to prove falsehoods. An interesting observation on the integrity of the people we are dealing with here. Conversely I note they don't quote other parts of agreements, sometimes the very next sentence, which completely contradicts their point of view. Come on guys, if you're going to illegally post these quotes, at least have the courtesy to post the whole clause, and not just selected snippets; that way everyone can see the gaping holes in your arguments!
Apart from that, the rest of VirtualAcorn and Dave Holden's comments are simply irrelevant anyway as they refer to the 1999 licence which HAS BEEN TERMINATED AND REPLACED BY THE 2004 LICENCEwhich sets out the ONLY RIGHTS ROL HAVE TO USE RISC OS.
Regarding the 2004 Licence VirtualAcorn has let the cat out of the bag in his last post: "RISCOS Ltd invoked the "binding dispute" clause". Clear evidence that this licence subsists, I mean, if it didn't and ROL didn't believe that it did, why would they invoke the disputes clause? This then gives a very firm basis to challenge the rest of VirtualAcorn's assertions.
So what does the dispute clause cover? Well, it sets out a dispute resolution procedure under the auspices of a mediator. If at the end of the process no resolution is found, the parties may issue proceedings as they see fit. It categorically DOES NOT allow the agreement to be terminated or "scrapped". The only legal way this agreement can be varied from the execution copy in anyway is either by a judge ruling part of it invalid (in which case the rest of the agreement subsists in accordance with severability clause) or by mutual agreement in writing between Castle and ROL. I can state categorically that Castle HAS NOT AGREED ANY CHANGES to the agreement as executed and it continues in full force. If the agreement was terminated by invoking one of the termination clauses, e.g. summarily by Castle for non payment of royalties, then clauses such as IPR ownership, which is assigned to Castle would continue in force.
VirtualAcorn's concept that somehow the 1999 agreement continues is laughable and just fanciful thinking on the part of himself and his cohorts at ROL. It has no basis in law whatsoever, You can't just decide unilaterally you don't like a legal agreement and claim to substitute it with another, the suggestion is just plain daft. I refer VirtualAcorn to clause 18.1 of the 2004 licence which pertains to the settlement between Castle and ROL which confirms termination of the 1999 licence. This agreement has Paul Middleton's signature on it. If ROL have some claims they want to pursue regarding any dispute with the 2004 licence they should get a judge to rule on it, if not you have to accept the 2004 licence applies and cease making ridiculous claims about previous extinct licences.
Finally, I note VirtualAcorn now claims Castle had no rights to terminate the 1999 licence. Really? And next you'll be telling us all royalties under it were fully and properly paid too! Bulls***! When considering the validity of VirtualAccorn's comments on these forums everyone should note that they've spent several years distributing Castle's IPR for their own financial gain whilst almost nothing been paid back to Castle as royalties. I'll let the court of public opinion make it's own judgment on the morality of those perpertrating these actions.