Affiliate Marketing Secrets

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.

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.

When I entered a company haphazardly some time ago, it seemed to me that I was going to get hired. However, there was no training given or mentorship given to me whatsoever, yet people there kept on talking about me making mistakes and holding back salary or promising some kind of financial security or protection whatsoever. However, it was tentative and not even carried out over the weeks.
I was intrigued by the fact that the company policy and mission statement (it’s a non profit group) was more about helping the environment and goals of the company with a very tightly knit attitude of cooperation with colleagues, mutual respect and working with a sense of duty and obligation. I had only one person half heartedly dump all this kind of talk on me so I worked without pay for some time. I was mostly a believer in the officially outlined mission statement and it was emphasized by a few other people (actually by some in only one department).
A while later, I’ve seen a few odd things happening hear and there. Such as people blabbing to the sub manager about mistakes that people made, throwing others under the bus, coworkers spying on each other to keep tabs on their secret career advancements or promotions, etc. I think some of them also consult the competing company to check personality profiles or details about others to get a competitive advantage in this group. What’s kind of worrying is that when I spoke to some people in the movie/marketing department who were longer in this field, they said that usually human rights complaints are swept under the rug, that they strip you down to almost nothing with the amount of service that you have it in you to provide, and that you would most likely be hurt in more ways than you can imagine. Some others also said that it’s not supposed to be an “idealistically fun” type of work because it’s just tedious labor.
I’ve encountered a few problems in the past and think that perhaps my main problem is that I haven’t really “cracked” the way the “game” has been played. If I knew the real state of office politics or how things actually worked, I wouldn’t be making the same mistake again. Yet some people from my department keep on emphasizing the mission and policy objectives again and again but I don’t see it happening or if I act based on those things, I screw up.
So what exactly do I do?
3 hours ago – 1 week left to answer.
Additional Details
In addition, there are hidden office alliances that enable certain people who have done none of the hard work or getting into the difficult and dangerous areas to take credit for other’s ideas career advancement secrets or for management to provide them information about other members to serve their egotistical needs. They are allowed to cut corners no matter how much they violate the mission statement and they do the easiest jobs.

I say I am a buddhist but I don’t affiliate with a group, because I think that groups over complicate things. The only people I follow the teachings of are the Buddha himself and the Dalai Lama. (I know the Dalai Lama is Tibetan buddhist but I still like to hear what he has to say in terms of the Buddhas teachings). Is it ok to simply say that I am a Buddhist, and that my one true spiritual teacher is the buddha himself.

It fells like any normal school day as twelve year old Parker Brennan casually walks towards his school as he did every single other day on his own with only his Mp3 player for company.
As the young athletic jogs past one of the local shop market he notices 2 teenager run past him both carrying a handbag each at once Parker realizingg what was happening to turns to see two older woman sitting on the bench still in shock ‘ someone call the police’ Parker shouts before he being chasing after the two teenagers.
Before Parker know it he was chasing the pair up a set of stairs that lead up to a train platform the his thick black hair getting blow by the wind as he start to close in on one of the boys.
Just then Parker watches in disbelieve as both boys race across the train track he stops at the edge and spots a train closing in knowing it was now or never he quickly jumps into the air and lands on his feet on the other side just as the train pulls up at the platform.
Parker notices that both the teens were now running along a riverbank Parker quickly runs to the stairs and jump off the railing landing on the ground he being chasing after the teens hoping that he would be able to catch one or both of them soon.
The story line is Parker along with 3 other kids are all recruited by a top secret spy network and are at once sent to spy school.
After completing the 3 month course all four kids are sent up as undercover agents within a school there mission to find a group of people within the school who are making a computer program that controls the minds of anyone who turns it on