Sa110> If you think "I didn't read it before signing it guv" is any good as a legal defence I suggest you go try it on your credit card or mortgage company
Seriously, the 2004 licence is a complex document and at 52 pages it's not too surprising if sometime after signature a couple of minor mistakes are spotted. In this case small points were raised by BOTH parties and amicable discussions were started to correct these. They broke down when Paul Middleton started trying to use these discussions to re-write the whole agreement!
Small errors happen in any number of legal documents, it doesn't make them invalid, and clauses such as a severability clause are included to ensure they don't undermine anything else in the agreement. Amateur lawyers are always good at raising very trivial issues as major obstacles and get outs (just look at this thread ). In reality, if this stuff ever went to court the judge would first look at the licence as a whole and see what the parties intended and not waste time on the minutia. Despite any minor issues the intention of the parties in the 2004 Licence is still very clear and the licence remains completely valid and enforceable.