I don't think survival is justification for ripping something off You know anton, you keep saying that as if it was some kind of mantra you cling to. Although I'm starting to think it is pointless, I'll say it again: Making a program that does the same basic thing as another company's program is not ripping them off. Making a program that has file compatability with another company's program is also not ripping them off. Let me put this another way - the logic you are using here is the same as if I said that all car manufactorures other than Ford are ripping off Ford [since Ford was the first internal combusion engine car that was made] After all, they all build cars which carry people and luggage, etc, on roads using basically the same engineering principles. They have IC engines, they use the same gas, they have tires that are made in the same general way.... need I go on? And in case you think that they ARE ripping off Ford, then think of this - if Henry Ford had not had any competition there would have been no reason to improve his car. The only reason he started painting cars different colours [he felt black should be good enough for everyone and stood by that for quite some time] was that other cars started being made with a choice of colours and he had to change or lose sales. The reason Ford went to the fully enclosed concept was because others where doing it. Henry Ford himself could not see any reason why a car needed to go much faster than a horse drawn buggy, but he had to improve speed because others were. In short, we would still be driving something not much better than a model-A or a model-T today if it hadn't been for others building cars. If someone decompiles a program and steals the actual code then yes, they are ripping someone off and btw, they could and would be charged for it - it's a criminal offence ... so tell me, how many of the DAZ staff have gone to prison because of D|S? Zero? Oh, guess they didn't do that then. The actual code is the property of the ones who write it [or those they sell it to] but the concept is not. The idea of a program that allows you to pose and render figures belongs to no one. If you are going to insist on beatting that same drum then I susgest you provide varifyable proof that DAZ has stolen something from eF - proof that they are using something they have no right to. So far I have seen none. And the fact that both DAZ and eF have publicly stated that there is no strife between them tends to go a long way towards suggesting that no such thing has happened. Therefore, to continue to imply that DAZ has stolen something [that IS what "ripping off" means after all] is nothing more than noise unless it is backed up with some real proof.