And within 10 minutes a motion from the Supreme Court would nullify the ruling. Even in the most liberal 11th circuit, they aren't going to step on a contract.

If you're saying that there are activist judges then I agree, but I don't know of anything in the constitution that you could legitimately use to nullify this contract, do you?

So I'm basing this post on some of the number thrown around in this thread.

So say the cut off is 5000 and each game is $10. Developers gets 2/3rds of each sale. So in essence they lost $33,333 because of the threshold. Developer knows that and has to crunch the numbers to make up for it. To me the easiest way would be reduce the team size by 1.

In point of fact, I am. And I even study California law for a living. And while I'll be the first to tell you that our courts have slipped in quality from their golden age, the basic rules of contract remain in place. Contract terms can only be nullified if they violate public policy, are unconscionable, or meet one of a few other narrow circumstances.

While you can try to take a stab at the latter, you'd lose, simply because courts assume that commercial parties enter into contracts with their eyes open, and there's nothing I can see here that rebuts that presumption. In fact, I'm highly skeptical that a court would find these terms unconscionable even if one of the parties was a common consumer, as the threshold for "unconscionable" remains pretty high. Additionally, there are other venues that developers can take, which is taken into account.

But this whole discussion is irrelevant, as I'm fairly certain that Nintendo's made sure that Washington law applies.