There aren't many tech companies that can't be said to be competing with Google in one way or another. Assuming "the Company" means Google rather than Doubleclick (and it must) that makes them nearly unemployable.
"solicit business from, do business with or render services to, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, any entity that is or was a Company client or customer within the last twelve months of my employment with the Company, for a purpose or in a manner that is in any way competitive with the Company's business."
i.e., can't sell ads to anyone who used AdSense?
This is incredibly evil.
I've never been so glad to not have taken a Google job.
While this might not be enforceable, if you were a small company in a similar space, would you really risk hiring someone if you might get attacked by Google's lawyers?
News flash: big companies will try to screw you, even when it's against the law. If you do not resist, you are a chump, and I feel that hiring passive chumps can only lead to trouble.
Not nice, maybe, but it's worth understanding. When push comes to shove, you have to stand up for yourself.
Those that signed the NCA and then discarded it got themselves a free 2 months of severance. I applaud their canny maneuvering; Google is poorer for firing them.
From an employer's perspective I can clearly see given 2 identical candidates why you might want to shy away from the one who has signed a non-compete with a company known for having alot of lawyers like Google or Microsoft.
_Provide a Benefit to the Employee_
Next, you must provide a benefit to the employee in exchange for his or her promise not to compete against you. Making a job offer contingent on signing a noncompete agreement probably satisfies this requirement, since the employee is receiving a benefit (a job) in exchange for the promise. It's more difficult to provide an existing employee with a benefit, but generally, coupling the agreement with a promotion or a raise will do the trick.