sa110>Earlier on you were making the defense that ROL were rushed into signing the 2004 agreement and missed something. Surely that could also apply to their 1999 agreement (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that that agreement was still in effect). Therefore it would be highly dangerous of them to take it to court especially if some niggling detail they missed resulted in their claim being rendered void.
A few things to think about:
If ROL had the "exclusive right" for desktop use of RISC OS (I believe they *had* in 1999) then releasing any ROM image for *emulation* (which they did) would amount to a breech IMHO as (i). An emulator is a program not a desktop machine and (ii). That even if we viewed an emulator as simulating a desktop machine it could be installed on a laptop in which case (again) it would not be a desktop machine (to my knowledge ROL did not discourage such use - in fact the first machine released with emulation and ROL's blessing was the Microdigital Alpha - a PC laptop with VA installed)
Then there's snippets of NDA covered documents being bandied about by persons affilitated to ROL - surely some terms of the 1999 or 2004 agreements would prohibit that (certainly an NDA would - which if broken weaken ROL's claims considerably - IMHO).
ROL when distributing ROM images for emulation include Pace's logo and copyright. Was this (a). With Pace's recent permission and (b). Did it appropriately recognise that Castle had bought Pace out and therefore the copyright should be attributed to Castle. If either (or both) are untrue then some answering is needed.
Anyway I am off to get some of those saugages the lads further down are talking about (sadly they've remove the dioxins from the ones over here - it use to add a little tangyness I used to like.... ).