Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8906937" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Quick thing.A lot of what people might think of as &quot;nefarious,&quot; are actually standard provisions in most contracts.It's hard to deal with all the stuff going around- I don't know how many times, and how many people, had to say (back when royalties was a thing) that licensing agreements are always about revenue, not profit, and that wasn't some evil trick.Same here. This is standard boilerplate language. Companies (and the attorneys that draft contractual language for companies) hate expensive litigation against them. This is nothing more than a standard waiver of class action ... the whole &quot;class, collective, or other joint action,&quot; is simply legal surplusage to try and get all of the various type of &quot;class actions&quot; (like collective actions as they are called under the FLSA etc.). It's not a &quot;big deal.&quot; It's boilerplate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8906937, member: 7023840"] Quick thing. A lot of what people might think of as "nefarious," are actually standard provisions in most contracts. It's hard to deal with all the stuff going around- I don't know how many times, and how many people, had to say (back when royalties was a thing) that licensing agreements are always about revenue, not profit, and that wasn't some evil trick. Same here. This is standard boilerplate language. Companies (and the attorneys that draft contractual language for companies) hate expensive litigation against them. This is nothing more than a standard waiver of class action ... the whole "class, collective, or other joint action," is simply legal surplusage to try and get all of the various type of "class actions" (like collective actions as they are called under the FLSA etc.). It's not a "big deal." It's boilerplate. [/QUOTE]

Verification