The supplier may only use confidential information for the purposes of the commercial relationship between the supplier and Amazon. Unless expressly stipulated under these conditions, the supplier will not disclose confidential information to anyone without Amazon`s prior written consent. The provider will take all reasonable steps to prevent the unauthorized disclosure, dissemination or use of confidential information, including at least the steps it takes to protect its own confidential information of a similar nature. The supplier will separate confidential information from confidential third-party documents to prevent a municipality. The supplier understands that confidential information may constitute essential non-public information under U.S. securities law and regulations and may not act in Amazon securities on the basis of confidential information. (ii) have written confidentiality agreements that require them to protect confidential information. All confidential information remains the exclusive property of Amazon. The disclosure of confidential information by Amazon under these conditions does not constitute an explicit or implied concession of rights to Amazon`s patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks or other intellectual property rights to the supplier. Courts are often hesitant to impose competition bans across the United States, let alone around the world, Garden said, noting that the level of “relevance” is the most important legal test of agreements. Nevertheless, different states have very different conceptions of what is considered reasonable.
(In an obvious reference, Amazon`s contract provides that the signatory agrees that “any agreement and withholding in this agreement is appropriate.”) California law prohibits the application of the non-compete clause. Oregon, North Dakota and Colorado have also imposed severe non-competition restrictions. “Then there are states like Texas and Florida, and a number of others that are at the other end of the spectrum,” Says Lobel, “who consider it a simple matter of contract, and if you go into the treaty and fight against it, you have broken the treaty, and they will enforce it, and they will easily make declarations of omission.” Lack of bargaining power can lead workers to sign non-competition clauses, Lobel says, and these treaties further undermine their bargaining power. Because competition prohibitions make job loss even more dangerous by limiting employment opportunities, agreements can allow workers to connect to their current workplace, making them less likely to deal with complaints with management or try to find better or more suitable employment. The extension of the low-wage work non-compete clause was known across the country last year, when the Huffington Post reported that Jimmy John had some of his permanent collaborators sign non-cumulative agreements covering sandwich sellers within a three-mile radius of Jimmy John`s sites. Members of the U.S. Congress have called for a federal investigation into the sandwich chain`s use of the agreements. The Amazon contract appears more extreme: not only is it pushed towards temporary workers who have inevitably reduced their chances when they are fired, but it is also explicit in its potentially unlimited geographical scope. “It`s quite broad,” says Orly Lobel, a professor of labor law at the University of San Diego who has studied non-competition bans in detail and reviewed Amazon`s agreement.