Oh, let me clarify a bit. There are several ways that we have laws. Congress can enact a law which becomes a federal statute. A state can pass a law which becomes a statute. The US Supreme Court can issue a ruling that interprets the Constitution and thereby modifies the 'meaning' of a federal or state statute. A Federal district or a State can issue a ruling (caselaw) that is consistant with the upper court rulings and also clarifies a statute, etc. An attorney has to grapple with all of this and put it together in favor of the client. Opposing counsel does the same. That's the adversary issue where two attorneys read the same stuff and argue in favor of their client. The Judge reads both sides and researches on their own and makes a decision. Appeal courts look at those decisions and review what the judge did. This case is in the 9th circuit. That's a trial court and the bottom level. Its above the local state court because the parties are in different states with financial concerns over $75k (which is one way that suits end up on federal court rather than state court). When in Fed Ct, the substantive law of the land controls and federal procedures control over state procedures. These procedures can make or break a case for a client. So its a real quagmire and attorneys have lots to do to get it all put together in favor of their clients. That said, there's a long standing policy (caselaw, statutes, etc) that say people can make any agreement they want so long as it doesn't go against certain other laws. If it does, its illegal. Also, contract verbage is interpreted against the drafter, or in favor of the non drafter. So if there is a dispute about what something means, and the dispute is valid, there's a chance the contract will be interpreted in favor of Softman. But if the terms are clear enough, then it will be interpreted in favor of Adobe. I think they are clear enough in light of federal copywrite law. So, while I can contract with you in Nevada to sell a car at 122% finance charge (since there is no usery laws there) the same contract would be invalid as to the interest rate in other states and the court would adopt a reading consistent with the local state laws and reduce the interest rate. EVEN THOUGH BOTH PARTIES SIGNED. That's what illegal clauses are about. Its a matter of protecting the unsophisticated. Public policy, etc. The law is designed not to favor the person who has the advantage (though it does protect there a bit), but to favor the common person. Fair is fair and unfair is unfair. Does that help?