IT whizz takes on big guns

Picard said:
I don't understand. I need more information.
Click to expand...

This is how I understand it. a Software developer programs a transaction settlement system for use in the market. He gets it patented and then presents his code process or methodology to STD and MTN over a period of a year. STD and MTN are now using this programming logic or methodology in their systems and is transgression the patent or using it without the owners' consent. a Forensic audit confirms all of this and suggest legal action. One of the questions, I guess, the lawyers would ask : Is this patent so unique that it cannot be matched by a current financial market process or system (i.e. SWIFT Confirmation and Settlement system ?) If not, then STD and MTN stole the developers' patent/idea and now owes him big time moola ! :D
 
Last edited:
I dont get it. Why didnt MTN/STD bank hire developers and write their own transaction settlement system. Its not that complex....
 
I hope this guy takes a strip out of their collective thieving hides.
 
Joe Average said:
This is how I understand it. a Software developer programs a transaction settlement system for use in the market. He gets it patented and then presents his code process or methodology to STD and MTN over a period of a year. STD and MTN are now using this programming logic or methodology in their systems and is transgression the patent or using it without the owners' consent. a Forensic audit confirms all of this and suggest legal action. One of the questions, I guess, the lawyers would ask : Is this patent so unique that it cannot be matched by a current financial market process or system (i.e. SWIFT Confirmation and Settlement system ?) If not, then STD and MTN stole the developers' patent/idea and now owes him big time moola ! :D
Click to expand...

The audit has confirmed it.
 
zeely said:
I dont get it. Why didnt MTN/STD bank hire developers and write their own transaction settlement system. Its not that complex....
Click to expand...
You are confusing patents & copyrights.

Std & MTN are gonna lose this one.
 
zeely said:
I dont get it. Why didnt MTN/STD bank hire developers and write their own transaction settlement system. Its not that complex....
Click to expand...

I suppose one will have to look at why a 'patent' was registered. Is it a unique process that did not exist previously in the financial markets ? What does PSOCA mean and what is its basic workings ?
 
It's simple....Standard Bank and MTN stole the dude's idea.

The article states clearly that the programmers, business analysts, etc. at MTN, Standard Bank, who he presented the system to, are now all working on MTN and Standard Bank's "modified version" of it.

They owe you some serious cash dude!! Go get it. :)
 
zeely said:
I dont get it. Why didnt MTN/STD bank hire developers and write their own transaction settlement system. Its not that complex....
Click to expand...

+1. Why did Google buy Youtube, why didn't they just start their own? I don't get it
 
tco21 said:
The audit has confirmed it.
Click to expand...

Not so sure if you refer to :

...in fact have had full or, alternatively, part knowledge of the actual operational capabilities of the product.

?

But yes, it sounds like the plaintiff has a solid case.
 
Unreal said:
+1. Why did Google buy Youtube, why didn't they just start their own? I don't get it
Click to expand...

I hope that's you being sarcastic as it's very obvious why Google would rather buy YouTube than start their own equivalent.

I hope 3MFuture win.
 
Hey RPM can you please ask 3MFuture to start a blog or a Thread on here so we can follow the proceedings?
 
Last I checked, software processes are not patentable in South Africa (although, in a bizarre twist, one is able to successfully file a software patent in violation of the Patent Act). Even a business methodology or any such "intellectual" property is not patentable under the Act, so I'm rather confused as to what this patent really covers that 3MF and their lawyers are so sure that it is enforceable in a court.

For reference:
25. Patentable inventions
(1) A patent may, subject to the provisions of this section, be granted for any new invention which involves an inventive step and which is capable of being used or applied in trade and industry or agriculture.
(2) Anything which consists of:
(a) a discovery;
(b) a scientific theory;
(c) a mathematical method;
(d) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
(f) a program for a computer; or
(g) the presentation of information, shall not be an invention for the purposes of this Act.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) shall prevent, only to the extent to which a patent or an application for a patent relates to that thing as such, anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act.
Click to expand...
 
Unreal said:
+1. Why did Google buy Youtube, why didn't they just start their own? I don't get it
Click to expand...

The business decision is this: Spend $Xmillion to develop a Youtube-a-like from scratch, possibly getting it wrong (poor design decisions, etc.), and having to build a brand and userbase from the bottom-up, or spend $Ymillion (which possibly ends up being less than X in the long run) and buy Youtube, along with its userbase and past experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X