[__jf__]

> They responded by asserting the contract couldn't be exploitative b/c top lawyers in the industry wrote it and b/c other devs have signed it. The fact that they still easily sign devs on this is a poor reflection on the industry, not a vote in favour of the practice.

A long time ago, we had an expensive lawyer at a prestigious law firm draft a contract for a vital deal we were trying to close. We were in our early twenties and were very impressed by all the risks this contract transferred to the other party or mitigated in our favor. The other party reacted by asking if we had some junior draft the contract because it was so one-sided. They said: "If you want people to sign a contract, this is not the way to go." They proceeded to explain that our dog-eat-dog approach is not a promising start to a business relationship. They went bankrupt a year later.

[lucasyvas]

Is the message supposed to be that these types of contracts are universally good, or just in this case?

Presumably the financials of the would-be signing party should be considered.

A party with good or bad financial standing could take equal issue with such a contract, and the one in bad standing definitely should be willing to give up more.