It follows from your comment to the other article: "I believe they *had* [the "exclusive right" for desktop use of RISC OS] in 1999".
I told you that was their right (with exactly how I knew) in a public forum, you even stated that you believed it, and yet you still argue against it even though you have no evidence to the contrary.
Something you're still doing by saying "I had no reason then and have no reason now to believe that either ROL or Castle had somehow "cheated"" - there has been reason enough, you just refused to accept it AND continued to claim the opposite.
The Iyonix was a better bet than the Omega (and thanks to ROL's mismanagement, the CATS board based computer didn't even get a look in); no-one is disputing that. Part of the bet, though, seems to be that ROL would go bust quickly, and that didn't work out.
Castle shouldn't need people making unsubstatiated and incorrect assertions on websites on their behalf; why do you think they do?