Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Webspace | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

Profile for PeteWild

ContactAbout me
Email:
Private
ICQ:
AOL:
Yahoo:
Username: PeteWild
Realname: Pete Wild
About me:Director of Castle Technology Ltd and COO of Tematic
Homepage: www.pattotek.com
Face/Logo:
Comments posted:15 (show all)

Recent comments

On Five tips for ROL over the next five years:

Haven't dropped by Drobe in ages........ So glad to See Paul Middleton is so upeat about his sales. Hopefully that means ROL might soon pay Castle some of the several years back royalties they owe to Castle. I mean Paul, payment of royalties was part of the "spirit" of your original agreement with E14 was it not? :)

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 28/7/09 1:55PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On New RISC OS ownership claim may derail ROOL RiscPC ROM release:

VirtualAcorn wrote:

"I am glad to see that Peter has confirmed that under clause 3.6 of the ROL/E14 agreement code was only supplied back under licence and was never owned by E14, Pace or indeed Castle Technology Ltd."

Aaron, if you are going to paraphrase what I said please at least have the courtesy to paraphrase the whole paragraph and not just one sentence. The point has at least two conditionals against it which invalidate your arguments and are a matter of record in my posts above. You may think playing with words makes you look clever, well it doesn't it! It just shows up your ignorance and insincerity.

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 18/12/08 12:14PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On New RISC OS ownership claim may derail ROOL RiscPC ROM release:

Sa110> If you think "I didn't read it before signing it guv" is any good as a legal defence I suggest you go try it on your credit card or mortgage company ;)

Seriously, the 2004 licence is a complex document and at 52 pages it's not too surprising if sometime after signature a couple of minor mistakes are spotted. In this case small points were raised by BOTH parties and amicable discussions were started to correct these. They broke down when Paul Middleton started trying to use these discussions to re-write the whole agreement!

Small errors happen in any number of legal documents, it doesn't make them invalid, and clauses such as a severability clause are included to ensure they don't undermine anything else in the agreement. Amateur lawyers are always good at raising very trivial issues as major obstacles and get outs (just look at this thread ;) ). In reality, if this stuff ever went to court the judge would first look at the licence as a whole and see what the parties intended and not waste time on the minutia. Despite any minor issues the intention of the parties in the 2004 Licence is still very clear and the licence remains completely valid and enforceable.

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 18/12/08 11:48AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On New RISC OS ownership claim may derail ROOL RiscPC ROM release:

I find it interesting that David Holden on usenet, and now VirtualAcorn on this thread have both taken to selectively quoting from confidential documents on public forums. This is a clear breach of ROL's obligations under various agreements and Non disclosure agreements. Moreover, I note these comments are being selectively taken from these documents and used out of context. David Holden has already been caught red handed selectively editing old newsgroup quotes in an attempt to prove falsehoods. An interesting observation on the integrity of the people we are dealing with here. Conversely I note they don't quote other parts of agreements, sometimes the very next sentence, which completely contradicts their point of view. Come on guys, if you're going to illegally post these quotes, at least have the courtesy to post the whole clause, and not just selected snippets; that way everyone can see the gaping holes in your arguments!

Apart from that, the rest of VirtualAcorn and Dave Holden's comments are simply irrelevant anyway as they refer to the 1999 licence which HAS BEEN TERMINATED AND REPLACED BY THE 2004 LICENCEwhich sets out the ONLY RIGHTS ROL HAVE TO USE RISC OS.

Regarding the 2004 Licence VirtualAcorn has let the cat out of the bag in his last post: "RISCOS Ltd invoked the "binding dispute" clause". Clear evidence that this licence subsists, I mean, if it didn't and ROL didn't believe that it did, why would they invoke the disputes clause? This then gives a very firm basis to challenge the rest of VirtualAcorn's assertions.

So what does the dispute clause cover? Well, it sets out a dispute resolution procedure under the auspices of a mediator. If at the end of the process no resolution is found, the parties may issue proceedings as they see fit. It categorically DOES NOT allow the agreement to be terminated or "scrapped". The only legal way this agreement can be varied from the execution copy in anyway is either by a judge ruling part of it invalid (in which case the rest of the agreement subsists in accordance with severability clause) or by mutual agreement in writing between Castle and ROL. I can state categorically that Castle HAS NOT AGREED ANY CHANGES to the agreement as executed and it continues in full force. If the agreement was terminated by invoking one of the termination clauses, e.g. summarily by Castle for non payment of royalties, then clauses such as IPR ownership, which is assigned to Castle would continue in force.

VirtualAcorn's concept that somehow the 1999 agreement continues is laughable and just fanciful thinking on the part of himself and his cohorts at ROL. It has no basis in law whatsoever, You can't just decide unilaterally you don't like a legal agreement and claim to substitute it with another, the suggestion is just plain daft. I refer VirtualAcorn to clause 18.1 of the 2004 licence which pertains to the settlement between Castle and ROL which confirms termination of the 1999 licence. This agreement has Paul Middleton's signature on it. If ROL have some claims they want to pursue regarding any dispute with the 2004 licence they should get a judge to rule on it, if not you have to accept the 2004 licence applies and cease making ridiculous claims about previous extinct licences.

Finally, I note VirtualAcorn now claims Castle had no rights to terminate the 1999 licence. Really? And next you'll be telling us all royalties under it were fully and properly paid too! Bulls***! When considering the validity of VirtualAccorn's comments on these forums everyone should note that they've spent several years distributing Castle's IPR for their own financial gain whilst almost nothing been paid back to Castle as royalties. I'll let the court of public opinion make it's own judgment on the morality of those perpertrating these actions.

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 18/12/08 9:16AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On New RISC OS ownership claim may derail ROOL RiscPC ROM release:

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

"With regard to the "new agreement". Indeed a lot of time was spent negotiating this. I refer Peter to the communications in the few weeks after the negotiation and the meeting at Eversheds. As he will no doubt recall it was mutually agreed by both parties to abandon this agreement. I prefer not to embarrass Castle Technology Ltd, or its directors, by going into further detail."


LOL! The only person who could be embarrassed by this tale is Paul Middleton. In the week's after signature Paul decided he didn't like what he'd SIGNED UP TO and tried to change the agreement. Akin to someone exchanging contracts on a house purchase, moving in and then trying to back out cos they didn't like the wallpaper! Castle was categorically not part of any mutual agreement to abandon anything and this agreement continues in full force and effect until and unless it is properly terminated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. It seems ROL was in agreement at the time: look at your own company's press release: [link] not to mention several articles on drobe: [link] (Licence announcement) [link] (ROL Changes name) [link] (SE Show Report - Jack and Paul Q&A). For a brief period ROL even paid royalties as cited in the agreement.

Castle does have ample rights and grounds to terminate this agreement as Aaron well knows. Contrary to the assertions of some, Castle is not being the bad guys here and have allowed ROL to carry on doing what they are doing for more than four years without intervention. That is despite multiple breaches of the licence and continued non payment of royalties by ROL. Aaron would do well to remember that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

This does raise one very important question. If Castle had purchased everything, then why would a new agreement have been needed? Why would such an agreement need to say that "all IPR is assigned to Castle"? The only reason I can think of at the moment is that under the original agreements such IPR was not assigned to Castle.

It does make one think, doesn't it...


If you've read the 2004 licence you don't have to think too hard..... The reason was simple: to create a single merged source tree for RISC OS owned by Castle, and a set of desktop extension module which would be developed by ROL. The IPR ownership was required for the merged source moving forward, not just the pre-exisiting sources. Not difficult now was it?

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

Moving on. Further to the posting earlier from Stoppers. I've dug out my copy of the Peter Wild briefing to Shareholders from the 12th June 2004. The paragraph beginning "E14 got a..." is very interesting.

Finally I see that Peter Wild claims that "The 1999 licence was terminated; ROL have NO RIGHTS UNDER IT.". Well Peter, if that is the case then the licence back to E14 for the use of derivative works would also have been terminated.


Sorry to disappoint you, but clause 3.6, which Aaron so helpfully drew to this forum's attention, survives termination. This means any licence to use such derivative works continues and is perpetual so ROL have no means to terminate it. Of course, it's academic anyway; ROL failed to abide by their obligations under this clause so have no rights to any derivative works. Moreover, anything else ROL did own, they assigned ownership of to Castle in the 2004 agreement.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

Another question that people might want to ask. Why was it so important that the original agreement between RISCOS Ltd and E14 was destroyed? What does it say?


As I recall the objections were all from ROL's side as it didn't allow you to do what you wanted ;) Not least of all, Virtual Acorn! The 2004 agreement regularised that and was much more favourable to ROL in terms of markets and products it could license.

on 12/12/08 VirtualAcorn wrote:

On a very final note. I am very disapointed that this is turning out this way. Having discovered the real situation all RISCOS Ltd wanted to do was correct it and provide ROOL with an agreement to let them do what they already do and more besides. I am greatly sorry that it's ending up like this.


And butter wouldn't melt......... The "real situation" is that by making totally false claims about IPR ownership, you were cynically trying to set up a position whereby you hoped ROL could claim some royalties from ROOL's future activities if their work ever attracts commercial users. You were hoping Castle wouldn't notice the game you were playing and you were WRONG! Aaron, you reap what you sow.

I had no wish to get involved in this discussion; I have way better things to do. All I ask is that ROL respect Castle's IPR and the terms of the 2004 licence then work with ROOL for the benefit of RISC OS as a whole. If ROL were to pay Castle some of the royalties they owe for distributing RISC OS, and particularly for distributing Virtual Acorn, that would be nice too :)

 is a RISC OS UserPeteWild on 16/12/08 2:52AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Archive magazine reviewed
    A media watch special
     10 comments, latest by diomus on 27/10/07 12:01PM. Published: 23 Oct 2007

  • Random article

  • Geminus re-released as free download
    Graphics acceleration software for Iyonix users with multi-monitor support
     1 comment, latest by rjek on 20/10/08 9:42AM. Published: 19 Oct 2008

  • Useful links

    News and media:
    IconbarMyRISCOSArcSiteRISCOScodeANSC.S.A.AnnounceArchiveQercusRiscWorldDrag'n'DropGAG-News

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    Dealers:
    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster

    Usergroups:
    WROCCRONENKACCIRUGSASAUGROUGOLRONWUGMUGWAUGGAGRISCOS.be

    Useful:
    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign


    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "I made the assumption, though I should have known better in view of previous experience, that the article was factual"
    Page generated in 0.2267 seconds.