Why do people think MS wouldn't sue? Yes, there are Minecraft clones on XBL, but guess who owns that and makes money off of that? So, yea, given that MS now owns the IP, I'm not expecting them to be quite so nice towards clones as Notch was. Unless they launch only on XBL.

If this gained traction MS would sue.

This could be the plan if they don't want to sell enough to attract Mojang's new owner's reaction. 

PS: this could be a suitable answer to thismeintiel and Seece's last posts too.   

That didn't happen when Sony released Killzone. Or when there are multiple Halo ripoffs on the App Store and Play Store. 

Killzone is like Halo? Why because it's an FPS?

The difference is those rip offs are not a threat because they're entirely different due to budget. Whereas it wouldn't be difficult to create a game like Minecraft that is close to the real thing.

And I'm sure MS could have sued, but there was no point.

Like I said, if this took off they would.

But why would Microsoft even sue a game on a platform that won't outsell any of it predecessors? Like you said, there won't be a point. You're just trying to downplay this news. 

Because if it gains traction it's a threat MS can nullify, what has WiiU selling less than XB1 got to do with anything?

Nothing to do with "downplaying" just stating the obvious.

But why would it even gain traction on the Wii U? There's also the fact they could sue all the other  Minecraft ripoffs on the PlayStation Network. The PlayStation network will always have more users than a paltry 7 million. And please, you're always downplaying any news about Nintendo. 

Those Minecraft clones on PS4 are not taking off, thus MS have no need to sue. Is it really difficult for you to work out? If something on any platform becomes a threat to Minecraft, MS will sue, if it doesn't, they have no need.

We are at a agreement that this probably won't take off. That's it. I still don't think Microsoft will sue the anonymous developers if this takes off.