to Modify Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction is otherwise DENIED. SO ORDERED. 1 . This Amended Order corrects a typographical error contained in the Order on Motion to Modify Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction dated October 4, 2005. The typographical error appears on page 8 of the Order dated October 4, 2005 in the last paragraph. The Order currently reads "Plaintiff Richard D. Ross's Motion” and is amended to read "Defendant Richard D. Ross’s Motion”. 2 . The Agreement also contains a covenant to surrender business records not implicated here. 3 . As this Court noted in its earlier Order, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has distinguished between non-competition and nondisclosure clauses. Bernier v. Merrill Air Eng’rs, 2001 ME 17 ¶ 18, 770 A.2d 97, 103 (<HOLDING>). 4 .Bernier itself reflects the evidentiary
holding that durational limits are not necessary in nondisclosure clauses as they are in noncompete agreements because the imposition of geographic or durational limitations would defeat the entire purpose of restricting disclosure since confidentiality knows no temporal or geographical boundaries holding noncompete nondisclosure and lease contract agreements were maritime contracts when used in the context of employment aboard an exploration vessel holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements holding even though idaho law does not permit the enforcement of noncompete clauses in employment contracts erisa statutes allow forfeiture of pension benefits in excess of erisas minimum vesting requirements in noncompete clauses holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations