"No, you cannot wriggle out of the position you have taken up..."
The position I am taking is that the licence between ROL and Castle had, at least until 2004, a clause granting exclusive right to RISC OS Desktop products, and that they still claimed that (and more) to be the case, as recently as December of 2008.
Your position seems to be that ROL have no rights over desktop RO products, is that right?
You may have noticed that I've said that I don't know which way a ruling would go, since both sides have been playing silly beggars.
"We were discussing the ROL license, and I had not been quoting any unseen Castle licenses"
There is no difference; the licence is shared by the two companies, with rights and obligations on both sides. (Assuming it has not legally been revoked.)
"Remember back when ROL had a legal restraint put on them."
Vaguely. Was that on the basis of a ruling against them in court, or just a solicitor's letter? Do you see a difference?
"It is ROL that is making the claims about their license, that you are quoting as though they are airtight."
OK, I'll qualify it a little; their licence was an exclusive licence for the RO desktop market; they were recently claiming that hasn't changed.
"I notice that you do not claim to have seen the license in question."
No, I explained in the other thread the documentation I have seen. I assume that Castle made the best argument possible in support of their case. In it they state certain facts about the licence (including a part that ROL held exclusive rights to the market for desktop RO, which was, unsurprisingly, not disputed by ROL) and also arguments as to why Iyonix didn't fall under within that market, which I found it unpersuasive, to say the least.
May I ask what documentary evidence have you been party to, to be so sure that ROLs claims can be so easily dismissed?
"I presume that they would only consider initiating legal proceedings about something if..."
That's why I turned your statement around; why do you think ROL should behave differently?
"I have read your referenced contributions, and it appears to me that you are happy to quote hearsay as though it is gospel."
I'm not convinced by gospel....
I have not read the licence. On the other hand, I have read Castle's "Briefing to ROL Shareholders" regarding the licence between the two companies. You're welcome to consider that hearsay, if you like.
It's true you mentioned 3 facts, but the way you put it (and the following sentence) gave the impression that Castle had no obligations to ROL, which is something ROL was still disputing a few months ago.
I don't know why you can say you "Don't see where "ROL get a cut too from licensing" comes into it.", with no knowledge of the agreements between the two companies. If you've been told that's the case, that's hearsay, if not, it's just uninformed speculation. IMO, it's more reasonable to expect that ROL should get some recompence in exchange for their presumed relaxation of the licence permitting them exclusive access to the RO desktop market.
I, personally, am sure (based on written documentation) that the licence included obligations on both parties (ROL and Castle, originally E14), at least at the time of the briefing I attended in June 2004 (I notice I mistakenly put 2008 instead of 2004 in the other thread), and ROL, in the person of one of its Directors, was still disputing Castle's assertions in December 2008.