fylfot
14/6/04 6:36PM |
Facinating. I too hope that the legal dispute they refer to may be resolved soon as the A75 and A6 must be important aspects of STD's work. |
imj  (+1.5)
14/6/04 6:58PM |
Yikes! The last thing we need in this fragile, but I feel slightly recovering market, is any legal mess. This sort of stuff can suck the life (and needless to say, cash) out of companies in a stroke. I can imagine continued disputes about the legality of the emulators, but I thought that was all sorted, and given that the A75's also been suspended, it must be something else.  Good luck in fighting your corner, Stuart. |
blahsnr (-1.5)
14/6/04 7:05PM |
BBC BASIC licence problems? |
AMS
14/6/04 7:15PM |
So in what way are STD different from the other RISC OS emulator vendors ? (and as Ian quite sagely points out the A75 is being hit too - which is a bit baffling).
And then there's the 64000 Dollar question - who are the two third parties involved (I know speculation won't help so I'll leave that particular question hang).
|
AMS
14/6/04 7:18PM |
In reply to blahsnr:
But BBC BASIC comes as part of the RISC OS ROM doesn't it ? Has anyone ever seen RISC OS without BBC BASIC ?
STD do mention BBC BASIC in their litrature for the A75 but its supplied with VA and VARPC so why would it be different on the A6/A75 ? |
simo
14/6/04 9:29PM |
Why would it be BASIC?
Can't be hardware, wouldn't have thought it was bundled software, can't be Windows/VRPC, so must be RISC OS I'd have thought.
Hmm, Castle vs. ROL again? What's unique about STD? |
monkeyson
14/6/04 9:34PM |
"I can imagine disputes about the legality of the emulators ... and given that the A75's also been suspended, it must be something else"
If there is a dispute over the terms of any part of a licence or product I'd expect the legal advice would be to keep clear completely.
Besides, from a more practical point of view, it is impractical to only sell one model: the A6 and A75 product lines are complimentary (the A75 web site states that one is a development platform for the other.) |
monkeyson
14/6/04 9:35PM |
"Hmmm, Castle vs ROL again? What's unique about STD?"
Better lawyers?  |
Q
14/6/04 9:54PM |
Coming so soon after a very successful Wakefield Show this is very disappointing.
STD need to be up and running with current products and future developments as soon as possible. There are few enough who are really committed to making RISC OS work. |
AndrewDuffell (-1.1)
14/6/04 10:17PM |
Hmmm.... I hope that this isn't the result of a "certain dispute" :|
The only thing that is common between the two computers makes me think it is :| |
martin
14/6/04 10:25PM |
This could very quickly get out of hand, and cause upset all over the place.
For example, STD took out three full size colour page adverts in the last issue of Qercus. If Stuart has to put operations on hold that's one big headache for Q.
As a second example, STD where one of the big four that powered Wakefield this year. No STD at shows will lessen quite considerably what is on offer.
I fear the worst - how long before a similar announcement from other quarters ? |
Q
14/6/04 11:08PM |
Qercus funds payment to authors out of advertising revenue and has already taken steps to find alternative sources of income.
It would hold expansion of Qercus like it would hold expansion of RISC OS.
We've been saying for 2 years (eg Kathy's article in Feb 03 "Together or nowhere" that we need all the current dealers and developers co-operating to market RISC OS.
One developer down (even short-term) hits us all. |
adamr
14/6/04 11:45PM |
In reply to martin:
I fear the worst - how long before a similar announcement from other quarters ?
Are people here implying that Castle have called in their ownership of RISC OS and, as such, licences via ROL are in trouble?
Adam |
simo
15/6/04 12:06AM |
Adamr I think you've hit the nail on the head there, I doubt STD is the only person affected by this, if it is a RISC OS issue, maybe just the first to do something about it?
Very worrying, especially as STD seem to be one of the top 3 RISC OS companies these days..... |
Sawadee
15/6/04 3:07AM |
STD's message says the dispute is between two third parties. STD's words indicate to be confident towards the third parties resolving matter to a point to allow STD to continue trading, just 'when' is their point.
But everyone's concerns are right, I too hope that it doesn't blow out for STD's sake. Fingers crossed!
Cheers, Steve. |
peterb
15/6/04 7:36AM |
In reply to adamr:
Are people here implying that Castle have called in their ownership of RISC OS and, as such, licences via ROL are in trouble?
Information I received at Wakefield would suggest that this is fairly close to the truth! |
davehigton
15/6/04 7:39AM |
"Between two third parties" = neither of those is STD, so there appears to be no question over the licence agreement between STD and RISCOS Ltd. |
bucksboy
15/6/04 7:41AM |
In reply to Simo:
I suspect you're right: if this /is/ an RO4 licensing issue. logically all the hybrid makers plus VRPC are implicated too, which could be very serious. I found Stuart's reference to 'more stable market areas' alarming too; more than a whiff of 'if this doesn't get sorted soon I'm off' about it...
George |
nijinsky
15/6/04 8:17AM |
Well one thing is what the A75 waas being made for. Would this market also axcept linux or minix or some other small kernel with a BASIC interface.
As I haev said in the past, there are a lot of situations where stability and quick boot times are required.
Cheers
Bob |
ben
15/6/04 9:24AM |
Some nice speculation for you: ROL are only able to sell RISC OS for desktop use and Castle don't want STD selling the A75 into markets that they want to go into/are in so are stopping that. |
johnpettigrew
15/6/04 10:13AM |
But, provided that STD's computers provide a desktop (i.e. run RISC OS 4!) there should be no trouble with their licence from ROL. There's no specification of the market within which RO4 may be used - only that it should be desktop, not embedded or otherwise cut down. If someone other party is saying that ROL's licence doesn't stretch as far as they thought, that could be the two third parties mentioned.
It would be a Very Bad Thing for the RO market if Castle suppressed the marketing of ROL's products for any reason. Castle could well survive on specialist uses of their hardware and accompanying OS, but that doesn't do us lot any good
AIUI, IANAL, ICBW |
ben
15/6/04 10:56AM |
In reply to johnpettigrew:
"not embedded or otherwise cut down"
The A75 apparently runs 'Embedded RISC OS Adjust'. |
markee174
15/6/04 12:37PM |
In reply to Ben:
I am not sure a 7500 and an Xscale system can be competing in the same market given the differences in price/performance.
I don't think we can start painting Castle as potential 'baddies' - we don't even know who is involved in the dispute or what it is about...... |
mrtd (-0.1)
15/6/04 1:01PM |
I have to say too that I can't see what Castle would gain by pulling the plug in that way. Much more likely that they would upset a whole raft of RISC OS based companies and developers like STD, not to mention the users. Likely to be very counterproductive to Castle's attempts to promote the platofrm. No, I can't believe that Castle have done that. They just aren't that stupid!
Martin |
apdl (-0.1)
15/6/04 1:34PM |
In reply to mrtd:
How much are you prepared to bet ? |
AMS (-0.1)
15/6/04 1:52PM |
In reply to johnpettigrew:
"There's no specification of the market within which RO4 may be used - only that it should be desktop, not embedded or otherwise cut down."
The specification would be the license granted to ROL (with respect to the use and sale of RISC OS) by Element 13 (Acorn RIP). If my memory (hopefully unclouded by Hamburgers from the past) is correct the public comments at the time was that ROL was licensed to sell and develope DESKTOP OS products, but that they were prohibited from selling products that would directly compete against Pace (who had bought the rights to the OS in full from E13). Bearing in mind that Castle later acquired the whole shebang from Pace (the then OS owner) then Castle would be interchangable with Pace in the license that ROL had.
ROL would (If the above is true) be obliged not to directly compete against Castle (formerly Pace). But ROL would still be allowed produce a desktop product under the license.
As I am not a lawyer I won't charge my usual fee and you may need to take a lot of the above with a pinch of salt.
Regards
Annraoi
Comment of the day: Puzzlement comes with age..... |
mripley (-0.1)
15/6/04 2:12PM |
All idle speculation. Why not save your
fingers until we know what the problem
is ?
|
Spriteman (-0.1)
15/6/04 2:17PM |
What was the term on this contract?
--
Spriteman |
graphrisc (-0.1)
15/6/04 2:26PM |
In reply to mripley:
What fun is in that, if we would stop speculating the entire RISC OS scene would become silent as the grave |
Q
15/6/04 2:43PM |
For AMS:
I understood that the limitation of the ROL licence was to keep them out of the set-top box market. I doubt very much if castle would want to complain about ROL's licencing of embedded products:
[Link: www.riscos.com]
"PRESS RELEASE
8th February 2002
Embedded RISC OS announced.
RISCOS Ltd today announces the development of Embedded RISC OS.
Work is now progressing on developing a new version of RISC OS which will primarily aimed at the embedded products market.
Target devices will include ARM 7500, SA110 and eventually the SA1100/SA1110.
The first product to use Embedded RISC OS is being developed by Castle Technology using their Neuron system."
|
Smiler
15/6/04 2:58PM |
Does anybody actually know what the A75 is like to use? Is embedded RISC OS any different to normal RISC OS? I realise this probably doesn't get them out of their "direct competition" dispute. If this is the problem, the can't ROL be prosecuted for competing with Castle in the desktop market as well? Seeing as the lisence has been re-written with Castle instead of Pace. Hopefully, this is not the case! |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
