The “subject to” language could be read as a limitation on the developer’s authority to cooperate with its partners. Consider the phrase, “You may attend the party wearing a Speedo, but only if you pay a $5 charge.” A reasonable interpretation of this phrase is that I am invited to the party, but must pay to wear my slinky swim trunks (a very low price in light of the emotional trauma that would be imposed on the other party-goers). In the same vein, a reasonable interpretation of the contract provision is that the developer is authorized to develop products, but must pay to work with third parties.

Obviously, any interpretation depends upon the context supplied by the rest of the contract. But taking this provision alone illustrates one of the principle problems of legal drafting–too much material in too little space.

There are three separate issues crammed into a single sentence: (i) the authority to develop products; (ii) the cooperation with third-parties; and (iii) the conditional royalty reduction. By dealing with these issues in two or even three sentences, the author would have been able to control the interplay between the three issues. By forcing them into one brief sentence, he or she has surrendered much of that control.