I want to see them to get the servers working 100% then have Ubisoft sue them. Then they goto court where Ubisoft will (should) lose their ass and set the precedent on what happens when you pull this shit.
In most jurisdictions this project wouldn't have any problem, when it's a "clean room" implementation - meaning they figured out by themselves how the server works.
Several jurisdictions even allow reverse engineering and such to ensure compatibility / supporting an product that hasn't any official support anymore.
Others simply don't care.
It's all in the details, but they might not get sued that easily.
Not having a good case will not stop a team of highly paid lawyers from moving forward and forcing the mod team to pay for lawyers as the corporate law team pull every string they can to cause delays and try and wait until the mod team runs out of money to pay lawyers.
Even in jurisdictions that have laws to deal with SLAP suits, you have to come up with the cash upfront to fight the case.
I want to see them to get the servers working 100% then have Ubisoft sue them. Then they goto court where Ubisoft will (should) lose their ass and set the precedent on what happens when you pull this shit.
In most jurisdictions this project wouldn't have any problem, when it's a "clean room" implementation - meaning they figured out by themselves how the server works.
Several jurisdictions even allow reverse engineering and such to ensure compatibility / supporting an product that hasn't any official support anymore.
Others simply don't care.
It's all in the details, but they might not get sued that easily.
Not having a good case will not stop a team of highly paid lawyers from moving forward and forcing the mod team to pay for lawyers as the corporate law team pull every string they can to cause delays and try and wait until the mod team runs out of money to pay lawyers.
Even in jurisdictions that have laws to deal with SLAP suits, you have to come up with the cash upfront to fight the case.
Edit: fixed autocorrect mistake