I think this section is very clear. It seeks to define the phrase "Net Receipts", which it does. Net Reciepts
is clearly defined as "Gross Reciepts" less "Expenses"
, and some examples of the types of expenses one might reasonably expect during the course of transacting business are spelled out. Just so that there are no misunderstandings as to what types of expenses will be deducted from Gross Receipts
to arrive at the total of Net Receipts
, they give a clear view of the source of the expenses being withheld from Gross Receipts
, which is the statement that YOU highlighted. Nowhere does it mention that any expenses are withheld from Net Receipts
As to your concern here:
Also concerning is that it appears that the inventor would no longer have any control with respect to the product - period. What if it is not marketed/priced/distributed "efficiently"?
This is true. If you expect someone to do the "dirty work" for you, then you will have a hard time finding anyone willing to do so without having some say-so in the deal. If you cannot live with the terms, or do not trust the people with whom you are dealing, then you should not sign the agreement and just keep on walking. If, on the other hand, you look at what you stand to gain, and are happy with that, then you should allow a trusted partner the courtesy of developing the "learning curve" for your product that has, presumably, never been manufactured before, and may not have a developed distribution channel. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Just my nickle.