Got any evidence to back it up ?

You will have to be a little more specific as to what I need to backup, but yes - everything I have mentioned here can be backed up either by reviewing the statute in question or by looking at case law. I am happy to provide references, just as I did to DAZ when they tried convincing me that Joint Parameters are copyrightable.

Just because Sixus caved in to avoid a mud slinging doesnt mean they DAZ would have been able to convince a judge.

I agree. But that is not something I am arguing - I simply said they COULD SUE, not that they would win. In practice, one need not be right to win in the litigation game - simply have the money to withstand a lengthy lawsuit. I doubt many people frequenting Rendo have the money to go toe-to-toe with DAZ in the courtroom for long (regardless on the merits of the case).

As I said, how will you proof that I didnt come up with the JPs by myself ?

Actually, that would be easy. Just as in the Lilin2 case - compare the two. If they are exactly the same - that is enough proof to convince most judges. If they are not, then it would depend on the level of similarity...

(Or just copying them from Steph I MAX which is still freely available ? )

Mind sending me a link? I have heard of - but have never obtained said product. The fact that DAZ has not clamped down on it suggests to me that it is in someway encoded against V3 but as I said - I am not sure on that.

If it is encoded - this means you have installed V3 & are hence bound by the terms of the EULA.

I learned that Anton Kisiel doesnt allow to distribute ApolloMax actual mesh in any shape or form, NOT EVEN ENCODED.

This is his choice. Personally, I see it as a balance between control of the product and how flexible you are with others making extensions. Given that it is his product - I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

What if DAZ and e-frontier suddenly decide that this is a great idea, and change their EULAs ?

This would have no affect on you. You did not agree to the changed contract and as such will only be bound by the contract you originally agreed to. so your products are just fine - it only means that people that agree to the new EULA cannot do as you have done.

Those who sit in glasshouses should be carefull throwing stones.
I agree completely. However, it does not bode well to throw rocks at the bear even if he is in your backyard. In other words - just because something is 'right' does not mean it is 'wise'. I made very sure of my facts before talking to DAZ about the copyrightability of joint parameters. Why? Because they are a big company and I am not - they can afford a lawsuit and (at the time) I couldn't.

NOTE: I am not supporting DAZ here. Firstly, I have had legal advice stating that Joint Parameters & Poses are not copyrightable. To feel confident talking about it - I had my advisor explain to me why with references to case law on the topic. As such - I agree with Stahlratte on that.

However, when you agree to an EULA - you become bound by the contract (so long as the terms are legal in your part of the world). Part of the most EULA's I have seen (including DAZ's) state that you cannot copy & distribute the product. As such, you are bound to that agreement.

--EK