I'll accept that you don't care about ROL's rights, that's probably the first genuine thing you've said.
I do not have a "religious" belief in either company. What I do have is evidence (provided by Castle) that Castle didn't have a right to bring Iyonix into the market without ROL. You (and Druck), however, claim the opposite without any such evidence.
I'll remind you that you started off saying "If Aaron/ROL had a leg to stand on Iyonix would not have happened", and that Pace (and therefore, later, Castle) "had to right to grant or revoke whatever they wanted". These things are just not true, and do smack of either religious belief or maliciousness.
Am I happy about the situation RO has found itself in? Not at all. In fact, I haven't been happy since I found out that ROL had no intention of abstracting the reliance on Acorn hardware out of the OS without someone paying for it first, which was mind-numbingly short sighted. (They wanted to be paid to do the work themselves on a port by port basis, instead of making a generic solution so that multiple hardware vendors could work on their solutions in parallel and at no cost to ROL. Result: no new StrongARM computers.)
Am I happy the Iyonix is gone? I don't really care about it. However, ROL's shareholders kept quiet about it for the good of the overall market for six years; that is not the behaviour of people who want the market to fail, that was the behaviour of pragmatic people. If there is no Iyonix 2, whose fault is that? Castle could have worked with ROL and none of this discussion would ever have happened, but they wanted to be the only player in the market and now what?
RISC OS is already an emulated toy - ARM processors are not about to catch up in terms of raw power and the price of commodity hardware is continuing to fall.
As to me having made up my mind; that's not true. Had you had a reasonable argument, I could have been persuaded, but your assertion seems to be nothing more than "winners" are always right, even if they cheat.