Massive victory for Please Call Me idea-man against Vodacom: report

I really didn't think this was a winnable case. I thought this was going to be dealt with as an IP issue. The ConCort is enforcing a verbal contract, that prescribed, based on IP that was invented by someone else. Also, if this guy said he invented the concept, he misrepresented himself, and thus in my mind nullifying the contract? I am quite taken aback by this. Unless I am totally off course. I do admit I have not read extensively about it.

Maybe Jannie can shed some light? This does after all shine a very big spotlight on how to deal with innovation and IP protection.
 
Last edited:
Paul Hjul said:
The real winner is the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Wait a second you're a lawyer right.:whistling:

Jola said:
I have always understood that any IP that you come up with while working for someone belongs to the employer.

This judgement seems to break a basic principle of the law wrt employers.

Not so ? Can anyone advise ?
Click to expand...

Well that's the default stance,however factors that could affect this are things like on whose time you developed the idea and if it was your job to develop these ideas in the first place.If that's your job description then no you won't be entitled to extra compensation(employer may supply extra as reward though).
 
Jola said:
Don't really see that, you could always sms or missed call someone to get them to call you.

And I don't recall ever paying any attention to the advertisements.
Click to expand...

From judgement : Page 5 - Point [9]

As stated in the newsletter the service was offered for free for a limited period
from the date of its launch. Later Vodacom charged for it. Despite the fee charged
the “Please Call Me” was an instant hit with customers and raked in a lot of money for
Vodacom. It is common cause that this product has generated revenue amounting to
billions of rands.
Click to expand...
 
Going through the judgement...court exposing Knott-Craig's claims that he came up with the idea...as a big fat ugly lie...

But Mr Knott-Craig performed dismally as a witness. The trial Court found no
difficulty in rejecting his evidence. The Court’s analysis of his evidence was rightly
scathing. He was willing to lie about matters which were documented in the records
of Vodacom. For example, he arrogated to himself, in his autobiography, the idea on
which the “Please Call Me” service was based, despite the fact that in February 2001
Mr Geissler had sent out an email to all members of staff, informing them about the
launch of the service and acknowledging the applicant as the author of the idea. This
acknowledgement was repeated in the newsletter of March 2001 by Vodacom’s
Managing Director. In this regard the trial Court found that it was likely that
Mr Knott-Craig was familiar with that newsletter because he also contributed an
article to it.
Click to expand...


page 9 of judgement
 
Last edited:
PCM - Generated Revenue

furpile said:
Please Call Me is a free service, how is he claiming R6bn for it? It cost you nothing to send the PCM. It may have brought in a bit more revenue for the company in new subscribers, but since all the networks offer this service you cannot claim this anymore.

From the MTN patent article. So how long before MTN lays a claim against VC? Surely the R6bn can help them pay off Nigeria? :)
Click to expand...

Every Please call me sent generated a call from the other Party which costed that customer at the time R2-20 + Per Call.

It's anyone's guess what Revenue was generated from it at the time.

Adverts can also be attached to each Please Call me for 5c per PCM sent.
 
Some people seem to be unhappy about this guy winning. I wonder why, what matters is that he WON the rest is just opinions.:p
 
MaryJane said:
I really didn't think this was a winnable case. I thought this was going to be dealt with as an IP issue. The ConCort is enforcing a verbal contract, that prescribed, based on IP that was invented by someone else. Also, if this guy said he invented the concept, he misrepresented himself, and thus in my mind nullifying the contract? I am quite taken aback by this. Unless I am totally off course. I do admit I have not read extensively about it.

Maybe Jannie can shed some light? This does after all shine a very big spotlight on how to deal with innovation and IP protection.
Click to expand...

since when do contracts "prescribe"?

Debt prescribes, a contract has currency.

You'll notice from very early on I've suggested that the underlying "winnable" issue has little to do with IP or the like but rather with the application of principles of equity.

Mercifully the CC has not marched down the road of hurting the scope, currency or validity of IP and has instead stuck to the heart question. I have honestly been quite concerned that the court would have set course towards inflicting harm.
 
Jola said:
Don't really see that, you could always sms or missed call someone to get them to call you.

And I don't recall ever paying any attention to the advertisements.
Click to expand...

You the comedian of the day? The prolific PCMers often had 0c to missed call or SMS with...
 
The_Librarian said:
All the employee contracts I've seen contained a clause that says if you develop XYZ in company time, it is the company's property.

But what if you develop/design ABC in your own, free time which will generate a profit for the company? Whose property is it then? Yours, or the company's? (IMHO it is yours since you did it in your own time...)

In such a case, what steps do you need to take in order to make sure that your company will not take your idea as their own?
Click to expand...

This is more of a general reply to anyone interested in the question you posed. Skip to #4 at the end for my take on your question.

I've had IP talks with my employer over the last few years. Their take, which may not necessarily be the standard, is that it belongs to the company if any of the following holds:

1. Developed during company time,
2. Developed using company resources, and/or
3. Product which was developed falls within your job description.

Add to this, it is the default position that the company claims ownership of everything you develop, unless you can prove you have not ticked any of 1-3. The onus is thus on you to be diligent with regards to your IP.

Lets focus on software development for the rest of this post, assuming resources and time is dirt cheap.

Now, if you are diligent enough, keep logs/use version control like git, you can generally steer clear of 1 & 2 above. However, the kicker is #3, especially so where software development is concerned.
If your contract simply states you produce software, you'll have a difficult time proving ownership since the company can claim absolutely any bit of code you produce; the logical conclusion of any attempt of you claiming ownership would be court battles a la Please-Call-Me's.

On the other hand, say your job description is geared toward financial institutions with an emphasis on big data/statistical models. You could go ahead and develop a mobile game and claim it, but adding features like user profiling using data mining or other statistical models could cause your game to infringe on your company's IP, irrespective if you were the sole driver of said IP at your company.

Then there's an additional gray area, sharing code (methods, etc.) between your personal and work projects. I'm not too sure if there's a precedent set on how to deal with this, but rather steer clear in the meanwhile (and note the outcome of Oracle vs Google).

All in all...

1. Negotiate your job description to be as precise as possible, and try to keep your personal projects' scope as far from your work as possible.
2. Be upfront with your employer regarding your personal projects. If you feel you cannot, weigh your options and see if you can find a better fit with a more open employer. Remember, your personal projects drives your awesomeness, and your employer benefits from your creativity.
3. Keep a paper trail which includes logs, NDAs, send scope of personal projects to yourself via email or registered post (for the time stamp), etc.
4. For your sanity: assume that any IP you produce for your employer, no matter how novel, that IP belongs to your employer. So before you begin to develop some wonderful product/enhancement, have a discussion about it with your employer with NDAs in hand (although, again for your sanity, assume the NDA isn't worth the paper its written on :p).
 
fruitbat said:
Correct. Lawyers get +\-10% of the payout. That's why this kept going!
Click to expand...

No. In this instance the legal firm Stirling Rand takes on all the legal costs and their contracts are at around 50%+ of the settlement value. It's a legal firm with international 'investors' putting up the funds on the basis of risk analysis.

I know this from one of their clients...
 
Paul Hjul said:
since when do contracts "prescribe"?

Debt prescribes, a contract has currency.

You'll notice from very early on I've suggested that the underlying "winnable" issue has little to do with IP or the like but rather with the application of principles of equity.

Mercifully the CC has not marched down the road of hurting the scope, currency or validity of IP and has instead stuck to the heart question. I have honestly been quite concerned that the court would have set course towards inflicting harm.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me spell it out for you: the contract did not prescribe, but the claim against it did. Was that so hard to interpret?

I read the ruling, and it now makes sense. Your interpretation of it is really strange. This is an IP issue all the way. The courts are just handling it in a different manner. Vodacom don't want to expose itself to MTN. The claim did not prescribe as the amount had not been determined as Vodacom were not willing to even discuss the matter with Makate. Therefore the prescription period has not even commenced.

Vodacom and Knott-Craig messed up big time. They lied, tried to cover it up, and now are caught with their pants down. They could not raise the real reason why they most likely didn't want to pay this guy: Makate's misrepresentation.

Kahn argued that the case is not about how much Vodacom owes Makate, but rather the IPR of the product. Kahn, who is currently in Mt. Shasta CA USA (Northern California), told Fin24 on Wednesday: “This is a complex case only because the simple facts have been ignored, and the simple fact is Makate did not invent the service.”
Click to expand...

http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/Real-Callme-inventor-stands-up-20140709

I would be hiding my head in shame if I were Knott-Craig. Guess he came off second best (see what I did there?).

And, how does one negotiate something in good faith, when the basis on which you are negotiating is a farce? What an utter mess.
 
Last edited:
The guy should be tarred and feathered and paraded though every city and town in South Africa. Little kids should be able to point and laugh. Adults allowed to throw rotten fruit.

Call Me is the most annoying thing ever to be thought up. That guy should be sued for every cent he ever makes and cell companies sued for not allowing cross network barring of Call Me. It is the most discussing form of spam.

Companies who advertise on this medium should be boycotted and brought to book by the law. Ever noticed what types of companies are promoted in these messages?

Cell companies should be required to only allow opt in messages and financially penalised for breaking the law. It should be that, unless you specifically request it, Call Me should be barred. No ands, ifs or buts.
 
Dairyfarmer said:
The guy should be tarred and feathered and paraded though every city and town in South Africa. Little kids should be able to point and laugh. Adults allowed to throw rotten fruit.

Call Me is the most annoying thing ever to be thought up. That guy should be sued for every cent he ever makes and cell companies sued for not allowing cross network barring of Call Me. It is the most discussing form of spam.

Companies who advertise on this medium should be boycotted and brought to book by the law. Ever noticed what types of companies are promoted in these messages?

Cell companies should be required to only allow opt in messages and financially penalised for breaking the law. It should be that, unless you specifically request it, Call Me should be barred. No ands, ifs or buts.
Click to expand...

This^^
 
So the please call me service did not exist in the US or rest of the world pre 2000?
 
furpile said:
Please Call Me is a free service, how is he claiming R6bn for it? It cost you nothing to send the PCM. It may have brought in a bit more revenue for the company in new subscribers, but since all the networks offer this service you cannot claim this anymore.

From the MTN patent article. So how long before MTN lays a claim against VC? Surely the R6bn can help them pay off Nigeria? :)
Click to expand...

Sinbad said:
Advertising. Each pcm carries an advert. The networks charge for these
Click to expand...

PCM might be free.
Then the bloke phones you and he pays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter