1. I don't see why it's in their interest to make a statement, except possibly to refute petty claims of 'lack of vision' and the like. It wouldn't be unknown for a RISC OS company to make a press statement just to make a petty refutation of a petty comment though.
2. You mean, beyond breaking the terms of their license, according to Castle?
3. Castle claim they were trying to negotiate.
4. Probably not, if they're not doing whatever it is they're legally meant to do.
5. Good question. On the surface it looks like simple frustration.
6. Is there a lawyer in the house?
7. I'd have thought that'd be unlikely, though it's possible they'd be equivalent.
8. Shareholders? Do you mean sublicensees? It doesn't say they've been talking with them, just notifying them and trying to find a solution for them (with unnamed parties)
9. I'd personally think you need things like TV out (in the case of an STB) or other hardware features to make a system (borderline) embedded. ROL licensed RO4 for specific systems which were known not to be embedded, but they didn't know what system VA would end up on. At a guess.
10. Depends on the terms they contracted their software engineers under. And depends on what happened to the RO 3.8 and beyond changes that Pace sold to ROL.
11. That could be argued all day. I don't think it's actually relevant though, since nothing says ROL has to supply post Select 2 core changes to anyone anyway (unless the contract has specific clauses covering breach of contract, which is possible).
12. Almost certainly not.
13. See above. Either they couldn't afford to upgrade their license so their actions complied, or they thought Castle were just bluffing.
While we're missing some important facts, they're only really questions 2, 6 and 10. Everything else falls into place if we know those. However, noone we can explicitly trust is going to tell us immediately, though comments from ROL and other may shed light.