STD Temporary Closure - RISC OS News, Software and Information

STD Temporary Closure

Published: 5th Jul 2004, 17:05:04GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By Peter Naulls

Page 1 of 1

"Review the changes" [Updated]

Stuart Tyrrell Developments today announced a temporary closure of trading in order to assess developments in the on going RISC OS dispute between Castle and RISCOS Ltd which affect STD's "A6" system based upon VirtualRiscPC. The full press release is below:

In order that we can minimise further losses and continue to review the changes which have taken place in the RISC OS market recently, Stuart Tyrrell Developments - the RISC OS retail arm of Advantage Six Ltd - today announce that they will close with immediate effect for a period of seven days.

We will make a further announcement on Tuesday 13th July.

Advantage Six Ltd, our service to OEM customers, all support and warranties remain unaffected.

Update at 19:29 6/7/2004
Yesterday, STD's Matt Edgar filled us in with a few more details, although explaining: "Unfortunately our legal advice [says] that there's a lot that I can't comment on. We have been told to make all reasonable steps needed to reduce our existing losses and minimise our exposure to new ones. Obviously it has been (and is continuing to be) a difficult time for us, it's very busy, but not the good kind of busy."

Apparently, using ARM Linux is not a preferred solution for STD and their customers, some of whom have, according to Matt, gone elsewhere.

Matt couldn't comment on Castle's statements, but did admit that STD's long term plans for RISC OS included the A75. As its distribution has been halted, Matt added, "This is really hurting the RISC OS side of the business. The quicker this is resolved, the better."

Links
Stuart Tyrrell Developments

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:

[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]

johnpettigrew 5/7/04 5:25PM	Castle and ROL had better get their fingers out. If they drive away STD, their desktop market (and ROL's only market) will be hugely harmed. Eliminate only a few more companies as a result of this bickering and there will be no commercial market at all, and nothing significant to fight over.
arenaman 5/7/04 5:46PM	Why do people keep mentioning Castle? If ROL have broken their licence obligations and consequently have lost their licence, it is not Castle's fault. You cannot expect Castle to turn a blind eye to the shipping of unauthorised products and non-payment of royalties. And yes, I do believe Castle, as the company has taken legal advice and Mr Lillingston is smart enough not to state things which aren't true. ROL needs to wrap itself up quickly or move even faster to right the wrongs it has committed. Middleton is behaving, as always, in the most unprofessional fashion. STD etc can always approach Castle for a RISC OS 3.7 or RISC OS 5 licence, and then there would be no problems and no splitting of the OS anymore.
Stewy 5/7/04 5:50PM	*In reply to johnpettigrew:* I agree. STD are a key player, and rightly respected. They are also a rival for Castle, both in the desktop and embedded market. And they the market the rival to Castle's USB solution. Hmmm... But as Castle have said that they want to support everyone (including rivals), insisting that choice and competition are a good thing, hopefully they'll resolve this with positive action. It's such a pity that companies such as STD and Virtual Acorn are suffering as a result of this dispute. It's noticeable that even though Castle have issues with ROL, Select/Adjust are still shipping. And even though ROL have always claimed to have an exclusive licence for the desktop market, therefore insisting that Castle cannot ship the Iyonix, Castle are still selling their 'disputed' product. Sadly, whatever the rights and wrongs, this was inevitable once Castle decided to put the thumbscrews on ROL by sending solicitor's letters to the AMSs. Good luck to STD!
arenaman (-1.5) 5/7/04 6:00PM	Again, you put the onus on Castle. Clearly, even ROL supporters recognise ROL's incompetence and lack of professionalism and consequently the very small odds on Paul Middleton actually resolving this. I would say continuing to ship a product when your licence has been terminated is a very foolish thing to do. ROL is now open to further charges.
speccyverse 5/7/04 6:15PM	CTL are responsible for this, if this closure remains permanent, CTL will have some questions to answer.
em2ac 5/7/04 6:19PM	I agree with arenaman, Castle have every right, and should take action, ROL should co-operate! Tisk Tisk if they are shipping
JWCR 5/7/04 6:22PM	speccyverse: Why? RISC OS Ltd are the company who are in breach of their licence. RISCOS Ltd are the people who are blocking resolution to this whole sorry mess.
mavhc 5/7/04 6:44PM	If STD/VA5000/Anyone else didn't believe that Castle were correct and ROL were wrong why would they stop selling their products? Have Riscstation and Microdigital stopped? Would anyone notice?
ksattic 5/7/04 6:45PM	*In reply to Stewy:* I may be missing something here, but as I understand, Castle own RISC OS and are able to do with it as they please. Therefore, how can the IYONIX be a "disputed" product? If they had violated the terms of their licensing agreement with Pace before they owned RISC OS, then surely that would have been a past issue with Pace and not RISCOS Ltd. Much as everyone likes to argue about the situation, Castle are obliged to protect their property.
AMS 5/7/04 7:25PM	Has anyone bothered to read the transcript.... Stewy/Speccyverse/johnpettigrew> Castle have already stated that because they cannot get ROL to "co-operate" they are uncertain as to what parts of RO4 are "clear" (what parts are undisputably Castle's and what bits were added later by ROL), they apparently said that RO3.71 or 5 are options for licensing to 3rd parties or (possibly) even an early version of RO4 (pre-Select)) and Castle might make those available. This gist of that is in the transcript it is public record - so why shouldn't vendors like STD take advantage (sorry Stuart - bad pun) of it. Yes things have changed, but there are still (apparently) options for 3rd parties like STD... so what's the problem ? Regards Annraoi
johnpettigrew 5/7/04 7:49PM	*In reply to arenaman:* I mention Castle because they are the ones who have taken the legal action. I mention ROL because they are the defendent in this action. It takes two to make a lawsuit. Also, to those who say that I "put the onus on Castle", I did no such thing. I named both parties equally and was partial to neither. Indeed, I cannot be partial to either - we cannot judge which side is at fault (and it could be either or both), because we do not know the details of the contracts that were signed, nor how the signers intended them to be understood (which matters in contract law). Both parties consider with some justification that they are in the right and the other party is in the wrong. Taking this through the courts is the only way to discover how this disagreement will be resolved, unless the parties can come to a more amicable arrangement first. If this goes to court, it will kill RISC OS on the desktop. Castle might survive as a manufacturer of specialist machines but there will be no desktop market left for Castle, RISC OS or us users.
Stewy 5/7/04 8:35PM	*In reply to ksattic:* "I may be missing something here, but as I understand, Castle own RISC OS and are able to do with it as they please. Therefore, how can the IYONIX be a "disputed" product?" It's 'disputed' by ROL in their response to Castle actions: [Link: www.riscos.com] As I understand matters, ROL feel that their contract with e14 gives them an exclusive right to license RISC OS-based computers sold into the desktop market. (Though, I believe, Castle had a separate licence for RO 3.71-based solutions.) Pace, although owners of RISC OS, had to abide by that, and did. From the ROL point of view, then, Castle needed to licence the Iyonix through them, as it was being sold into the desktop market (just as Castle had previously paid ROL for RO 4 licences). If ROL's interpretation of their contract is correct, then Castle buying RISC OS from Pace didn't change that; Castle would still be bound by the pre-existing agreement and can't "do with [RISC OS] as they please". I have no idea whether ROL have any way of substantiating their understanding of the contract; it's a real pity though that Castle's attempts to pressure ROL have caused predictable hardship to vital companies such as STD. Much as everyone likes to argue about the situation, presumably ROL are entitled to fight their corner?
Stewy 5/7/04 8:36PM	*In reply to AMS:* "Yes things have changed, but there are still (apparently) options for 3rd parties like STD... so what's the problem ?" The problem seems to be that Castle are not in a position to offer a viable alternative which meets the needs of the existing licensees of ROL. Indeed, Castle admit in the transcript (which I have read!), that it's only RO 3.7x or perhaps an 'early' RO4, or RO 5, that they could offer. And the problem? Well, Stuart Tyrrell explained on comp.sys.acorn.misc that "Adjust is the only OS which is capable of running on the A75. Integrating the required adjust features [...] would theoretically be possible, but only with a further investment of time and money beyond that which has /already/ been invested into Adjust and would require the co-operation or working-around of third party copyright holders. [...] The total consequences of moving away from Adjust for the A75 are not insignificant, and would preclude re-qualified product for an estimated 3-4 months. Those timescales are sufficient for many OEM's to strongly consider a move to a different OS. [Link: www.google.com]
Gulli 5/7/04 9:12PM	Why do you assume that RISC OS users vill just vaporise? Truly there will most likely be less of them but there have been bad times before
AMS 5/7/04 9:13PM	*In reply to Stewy:* Thanks for that I somehow missed Stuart Tyrell comment on comp.sys.misc (I put it down to old age on my part My appologies for inferring you hadn't read the transcript ! I suggested the alternative licensing strategy only as a means of a stop gap. If (as you say) it is not a viable alternative then that's an assessment to be made by the relevant 3rd parties. Castle, however, at least did offer the option of using 3.7, 4 (early) or 5 (which would probably involve a wait). I'd be worried that people would simply characterise it as Castle being "awkward" when they weren't. *In reply to Stewy:* ROL may well fight their corner - but the question is at what cost ? Will it be a resounding success if they bankrupt themselves, scare off investors in RISC OS technology from Castle and put a nail in the corporate coffin of STD/Advantage 6 and others ? What's need is reason - not a fight, one waits in hope..... Regards Annraoi
Gulli 5/7/04 9:18PM	Hmm, that was supposed to be a reply to johnpettigrew
arenaman 5/7/04 10:07PM	*In reply to johnpettigrew:* balderdash. How many times have Microsoft been in court, and have any of these instances resulted in the evaporation of the Windows market? No, they've made not the slightest bit of difference.
nunfetishist 5/7/04 11:02PM	*In reply to arenaman:* But, as somebody else mentioned, Microsoft have the funding to draw out such suits so far, that by the time a decision's been made, the product that was involved was ancient. I don't think ROL and CTL can afford, nor want, to do something similar. If STD's closure turns out to be permanent, then that'll be a massive and great shame, which will damage the market. CTL may say that they're happy to relicence to competitors, but from the looks of things, by the time they get around it, there won't be any to licence to! Which might well be a win for CTL in the short-term, and a big loss to the consumers. Certainly, there are people who'd never consider buying a machine from CTL, for the hundreds of reasons that vary from cost to compatibility. People like ROL and VA, along with the resellers, like STD, managed to fill a gap in the market that CTL may not have the resources, or will, to fill. If I were in CTL's shoes, that'd p*** me off big time, and I'd look for any way to stop it. And because we're talking businesses here, they'll do anything to grow their market share, and put a spin on things. (Although I'm not accusing CTL of anything of the sort, but if it turned out to be true, how many people would be surprised?)
mavhc 6/7/04 2:12AM	Attempting to kill off other RISC OS companies at this point would be crazy
jcmcculloch 6/7/04 3:36AM	Perhaps CTL could comment, on how STD can continue marketing hardware/software utilising VirtualRPC & RISC OS, if as Jack Lillingston, states in the published transcript that VirtualRPC is neither licensable nor authorisable. How can he then offer, STD the use of 3.71 or 5, if in his view RISC OS is not authorisable for use on VirtualRPC. This smacks of protectionism.
Sawadee 6/7/04 5:33AM	If ROL's licence was breeched, then why didn't ROL apply (or did ROL apply?) for a licence amendment/upgrade so that it does comply? I can't see the reasons why CTL or ROL would be a competitive threat to each other, as they specialize in different market areas (to a point). Surely, wouldn't CTL have not issued ROL a licencing right in the first place if they were worried about competition? If ROL lose the argument they will just have to comply, request licence amendments (if possible), or shut the door to certain products. :ro4: When Acorn shut the door, :crybaby: we just carried on.... :acorn: Cheers, Steve.
jcmcculloch 6/7/04 8:26AM	in reply to Sawadee, youve missed my point, this was directed wholly at CTL, nothing to do with ROL, they had indicated their willingness to allow STD and others to trade in competition, but this comment was made by them, in defference to STD and AMSes, would see this as possible reason for temporary closure at STD. 73 de John
Sawadee 6/7/04 9:20AM	*In reply to jcmcculloch:* Sorry I didn't miss your point, I actually didn't read your comment. My comment were my views after reading what most of the top half were saying, not the bottom few of the list. But an interesting point (now I've read yours), it isn't really very clear from CTL (that I know of) how ROL can continue. I suppose we may know in time when the dispute issues begin to clear and become apparent to us. One's interpretation of a licence and authorisation of it's use seems to be as tricky as a Lawyer interpreting the law? Cheers, Steve.
mavhc 6/7/04 11:32AM	Castle said VRPC isn't licensable under the current ROL licence, so either ROL need a new licence from Castle or VA go direct to Castle.
flypig 6/7/04 11:41AM	*In reply to jcmcculloch:* When CTL say in the transcript that VirtualRPC is not lisensable, they mean that it is not lisensable by ROL under the terms of their current licence. This leaves they way open for CTL to license it to other third parties. Alternatrively, ROL could request an extension of their licence so that they can sell RO4 for VRPC. This is my interpretation of what they say, and if correct, I don't think this would be protectionism. The real difficulty is that many OEMs need RO 4, and clearly different parts of this are now owned by both Castle and RO Ltd. They are simply going to have to cooperate at some level before this gets sorted out.
SimonC 6/7/04 11:49AM	If you were really cynical you could think that Castle saying third parties could come to them for licenses instead of ROL is not trying to offer a way through, but to get hold of ROL's customers.
Col1 6/7/04 1:07PM	In reply to anyone who cares to listen: The transcript of the recent press conference is nothing more than Castle putting forward there particular viewpoint. ie explaining the situation as they see it. This isn't to say that they (Castle) are lying or indulging in spin but merely pointing out that you can't take whats in the transcript as hard evidence of anything. This would also apply if ROL were to hold a press conference and say "VA is licensed cos I said so". I repeat - press conferences (and press announcements for that matter) are nothing more than one particular company putting forward their particular viewpoint. Unless anyone here has read the actual terms of agreement betwen ROL/PACE, PACE/CTL, CTL/ROL or anyone else then all these comments are pure speculation.
dgs 6/7/04 1:22PM	*In reply to Col1:* "The transcript of the recent press conference is nothing more than Castle putting forward there particular viewpoint" That's not correct - it also has viewpoints from a number of other people as well. For example, John Cartmell saying that Castle's termination of ROL's license was "obviously for good reasons". dgs
Waldorf 6/7/04 1:48PM	Does anyone else feel that a little too much posturing is going on? What will 7 days save? Given that the press release states that support and warranties are unaffected, then all closing for 7 days is going to do is to prevent sales (and even in the current debacle I'm sure the Unipod, PS2Mousemini and so on are unaffected). Maybe the idea is to attempt to force a resolution - but is throwing all your toys out of the pram and going off for a week to sulk really going to get you anyway? Or does Stuart just like to announce his holidays in the most dramatic way possible?
guestx 6/7/04 2:05PM	"We interrupt this broadcast to go over live to a press conference where Paul Vigay [1] is about to announce his holiday plans." [1] Randomly selected, moderately well-known RISC OS scene personality. May not be applicable in certain jurisdictions. Please consult a legal advisor before substituting.
Use the forum for more comments on this article