For me, Apress's apparent feeling that the wording of contracts just doesn't matter, and the comment that they "don't modify the standard contract" are huge hug

For me, Apress's apparent feeling that the wording of contracts just doesn't matter, and the comment that they "don't modify the standard contract" are huge huge red flags, and I've had major issues in the past with this. Their seems to be a scarily common school of thought that contracts are, basically, magic incantations to ward off the lawyer demons. You just need to have a contract, sign it, and somehow, magically, everything will be okay. This is, obviously, not how it works. The wording of a contract is of absolute import; you should never ever sign one without reading it closely, and (ideally) getting a lawyer familiar with the issues to read it over. But I've had more than one boss or client who had a "standard" wildly inappropriate contract they expected me to sign, and when I pointed out some issues would just say "oh, those clauses don't matter"/"don't apply to you"/"just ignore them". In my experience, confidentiality agreements are especially likely targets for this egregious mentality. "Uh, this contract says that if I throw together a mockup of an iPhone app for you, you will own all the IP/product ideas/designs/technology I develop for the next three years." "Oh, don't worry about that, it's just a standard clause - just sign right here." "...No." Madness. And yes, most people are playing it honest, and have no intention to try and enforce whatever crazy clause is in the "standard" contract, or invalidate it, or other legal shenanigan. But you just never know...