Can you buy a A9 embedded machine running RO?
Where did you get the idea that the target market was limited to desktop computers, to the exclusion of laptops? That's quite a detailed assertion you're making about the content of a licence that's supposed to be secret (and debatable, try *help desktop).
Did they also tell you that it was limited to the enthusiast market? Or that "If Aaron/ROL had a leg to stand on Iyonix would not have happened"? Or Pace "had t[he] right to grant or revoke whatever they wanted."?
Or did you make all that up yourself? (I know you didn't bring up the "enthusiast market", but I suspect it came from the same source.)
Your timeline is also a little out.
November 2002: Iyonix goes on sale
September 2003: RISCOS Ltd Licenses RISC OS 4 for general use with VirtualAcorn Emulators
I've been talking about the time the Iyonix came out; at that time, it was in breach of ROL's exclusive market and Castle's argument against that is laughable. (I was going to write specious, but I looked it up and is means "Seemingly well-reasoned, but...", it's not even that.)
Look, both companies have a list of complaints to make against each other. What I'm objecting to is people making absolute statements (and misleading hypotheticals) that are not supported by the facts.
By the way, how could Pace have given permission for Iyonix/RO5, after granting an exclusive licence to ROL in that area, and if they had, don't you think Castle would have included that in their justification to ROL shareholders?