Affiliate Marketing Secrets

NON-DISCLOSURE AND NON-SOLICITATION
Confidential Information Defined. “Confidential Information” means: (a) any “trade secret” as defined in California Civil Code section 3426 et seq.; and further, (b) any information not readily accessible to the public that Consultant obtains through Company, which relates to Company’s finances, operations, clients, vendors, or other third party with whom the Company has an existing or reasonably anticipated relationship. Such Confidential Information includes, without limitation, Company’s technology, processes, products, programs, vendors, suppliers, consultants, research, development, accounting, marketing, pricing, staffing, strategies, contracts, security protocols, client lists or databases, client documents, post orders, marketing or sales proposals, and any actual or contemplated trademark, service mark, trade name or patent. The information described above is Confidential Information no matter how obtained, and regardless of whether such information is intangible (such as a fact known but not recorded), recorded in written form (such as a letter, memorandum or other document), or otherwise recorded (such as a photograph, videotape, audiotape or computer disk). Information concerning Company clients has independent economic value to the Company, and the Company has expended considerable time and effort to develop, compile and protect the confidentiality of that information.
No Solicitation/Interference. While providing services to Company or for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not: solicit on behalf of any entity other than Company, business from any Company client whose identity and/or interests are Confidential Information of Company. Consultant further agrees that while providing services to Company and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not solicit any Company employee for employment by any competing security or event services entity. Consultant further agrees that while providing services to Company and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not induce any Company client, Company employee, consultant, independent contractor, licensee or other third party to sever any relationship with Company, or to modify its business with Company on terms which are less favorable to Company.
Equitable Relief and Liquidated Damages. In addition to any other rights and remedies Company may have, any Consultant breaching this section agrees that Company, without the necessity of proving actual damages, shall be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Consultant from breaching or continuing to breach this section and that Company shall be entitled to such relief without posting bond. Because damages for such breach may be difficult to ascertain, Consultant agrees to pay to the Company the sum of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for each such breach as liquidated damages in the event that Consultant violates the terms of this section.

I’m soon to turn 18 and am wanting to get a few tattoos. I am currently studying Engineering at a non military affiliated university but am potentially going to look into transferring to ADFA at the end of my first year.
An extensive Google search yielded mixed results. For the purpose of context, I shall describe my intended tattoo locations:
– Underside of the left forearm
– Top of the right hand
I know the general restrictions; it can’t be sexually suggestive, racist or extremist (etc.) in any way and I have no plans for mine to be. I know that the U.S. Army allows tattoos practically anywhere (apart from the face) pending that the guidelines and restrictions are adhered to. I’m unsure about the Australian Army though… Will they reject an applicant that has tattoos lower than the wrist line or those that are visible when wearing a PT uniform?

How much Referall commission do you get in consumer electronics and will you not get them until the item Is shipped? Also would video games ( not consoles) count in this category?

2 Questions:
1. Would it be “advantageous” to the Consultant” to sign this NDA, knowing it will NOT hold up in court?
2. Would this agreement, if the Company “claims” in the future that there is a breach by Consultant hold up in court at all?
Especially the “No Solicitation/Interference” section and the “Equitable Relief and Liquidated Damages” section. The Consultant is a Marketing Consultant. The “Company” is a Security Protection Company.
NON-DISCLOSURE AND NON-SOLICITATION
Confidential Information Defined. “Confidential Information” means: (a) any “trade secret” as defined in California Civil Code section 3426 et seq.; and further, (b) any information not readily accessible to the public that Consultant obtains through Company, which relates to Company’s finances, operations, clients, vendors, or other third party with whom the Company has an existing or reasonably anticipated relationship. Such Confidential Information includes, without limitation, Company’s technology, processes, products, programs, vendors, suppliers, consultants, research, development, accounting, marketing, pricing, staffing, strategies, contracts, security protocols, client lists or databases, client documents, post orders, marketing or sales proposals, and any actual or contemplated trademark, service mark, trade name or patent. The information described above is Confidential Information no matter how obtained, and regardless of whether such information is intangible (such as a fact known but not recorded), recorded in written form (such as a letter, memorandum or other document), or otherwise recorded (such as a photograph, videotape, audiotape or computer disk). Information concerning Company clients has independent economic value to the Company, and the Company has expended considerable time and effort to develop, compile and protect the confidentiality of that information.
No Solicitation/Interference. While providing services to Company or for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not: solicit on behalf of any entity other than Company, business from any Company client whose identity and/or interests are Confidential Information of Company. Consultant further agrees that while providing services to Company and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not solicit any Company employee for employment by any competing security or event services entity. Consultant further agrees that while providing services to Company and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, Consultant shall not induce any Company client, Company employee, consultant, independent contractor, licensee or other third party to sever any relationship with Company, or to modify its business with Company on terms which are less favorable to Company.
Equitable Relief and Liquidated Damages. In addition to any other rights and remedies Company may have, any Consultant breaching this section agrees that Company, without the necessity of proving actual damages, shall be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Consultant from breaching or continuing to breach this section and that Company shall be entitled to such relief without posting bond. Because damages for such breach may be difficult to ascertain, Consultant agrees to pay to the Company the sum of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for each such breach as liquidated damages in the event that Consultant violates the terms of this section.

Kinetic Concepts Inc. has reached a settlement with a former executive it recently sued after he agreed to work for rival wound-care company Smith & Nephew. Under the terms of the settlement, Israel Vierma — who had been KCI’s regional vice president of Latin America and Brazil — can work for Smith & Nephew but is barred from being directly involved in the company’s Latin American operations for almost the next two years. Vierma also can’t directly assist London-based Smith & Nephew in China, Japan and India for the next 60 days. Terms of the settlement are confidential, but certain details were revealed in a permanent injunction KCI and Vierma entered into and filed on Sunday in federal court. The injunction was signed by U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth on Monday. KCI spokesman Mike Barger declined to comment on the settlement. Vierma’s lawyer and a Smith & Nephew spokeswoman each did not respond to a request for comment. Smith & Nephew was not named in the suit. Vierma lives in Miami. KCI sued Vierma last month, seeking to prevent him from working in any capacity related to the development of emerging markets for Smith & Nephew. The case originally was filed in Bexar County district court but was moved by Vierma to federal court last week. The San Antonio company argued in its complaint that a noncompete agreement Vierma signed bars him from working for any of KCI’s competitors. Smith & Nephew was among the competitors identified by name. “Vierma acknowledged in the … agreement that his exposure to KCI’s confidential information gave him a ‘competitive advantage’ in the highly competitive medical technology marketplace,” KCI’s complaint states. Vierma also acknowledged, the suit added, that “disclosure of KCI’s confidential information ‘could place [KCI] at a serious competitive disadvantage and could cause serious damage, financial or otherwise, to the business of [KCI].’” Both KCI and Vierma agreed that the noncompete agreement is valid and “supports the entry of (the) permanent injunction.” According to the injunction, Vierma can work as Smith & Nephew’s vice president of strategic marketing for negative-pressure wound therapy in emerging and international markets. However, his duties can’t be specifically directed at the wound-care markets and negative-pressure wound therapy for the specified time periods. KCI generated $14.5 million in sales in Latin America and Brazil last year, according to a signed declaration Vierma submitted in the case. KCI is owned by London-based private equity firm Apex Partners and affiliates of two Canadian pension investment management firms.

A hypothetical bat species (species 1) lives in a city. Another hypothetical bat species (species 2) established a population in the same city after a number of individuals escaped from a zoo. In isolation, each species prefers to roost in buildings that are three or more stories tall. After species 2 became established in the city, species 1 began roosting only in buildings less than three stories tall, whereas species 2 roosted in buildings three or more stories tall. Observers determined that the bright streetlights at ground level had previously deterred most bats from roosting in shorter buildings. Over many generations of existing in the same city with species 2, species 1 showed changes in eye size and retina structure. Complete the following statements about the two bat species. Drag the terms to the appropriate blanks to complete the sentences. Not all terms will be used. 1. Roosting areas in buildings of any height are the _______________ of species 1. 2. ____________ between the two bat species occurs because both species prefer the same roosting areas. 3. In parts of the city with only tall buildings (over two stories), ______________ of species 1 may occur. 4. Roosting areas in buildings that are one to tow stories tall are the ___________ of species 1 when species 2 is present. 5. The change in the roosting habits of species 1 after species 2 became established in the city is an example of ________. 6. The competition between the species for roosting areas is an example of a _______ interaction. 7. The changes in the eyes of species 1 are examples of ______. Answer choices: a.) resource partitioning b.) intraspecific competition c.) fundamental niche d.) interspecific competition. e.) realized niche f.) -/- g.) character displacement h.) competivie exclusion