Please Call Me inventor Ari Kahn has developed a system like Makate's original "Buzz" idea

Jan

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
14,131
Reaction score
12,270
Location
The Rabbit Hole
The real inventor of Please Call Me in South Africa

Cellular technology innovator Ari Kahn is the real inventor of the Please Call Me service, which he developed while working as a contractor for MTN nearly 24 years ago.

Khan initially studied medicine at the University of Cape Town, but after two and a half years, he left to pursue a computer science degree at Wits University.
 
"and MTN successfully filed for IP protection" - so they submitted a form. Was the patent issued?
 
so what happens now, the entire please call me circus gets thrown out and dismissed?
what about the lawyers that cost many millions, how did they miss this?
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
so what happens now, the entire please call me circus gets thrown out and dismissed?
what about the lawyers that cost many millions, how did they miss this?
Click to expand...
Doesnt matter, who invented it. The guy had a contract with the head of Vodacom. Thats what the whole case is about.

All that seemingly happened, Vodacom stopped creating their own version and stole MTN's version or part of it. And then try to cover it up some more.
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
so what happens now, the entire please call me circus gets thrown out and dismissed?
what about the lawyers that cost many millions, how did they miss this?
Click to expand...
Basically the court decided that a stolen non-executed idea with no contact is worth a few trillion - and thus, it’ll go through

You’ll notice most the backers simply say ‘but the court decided’ to most questions you pose
 
Dolby said:
Basically the court decided that a stolen non-executed idea with no contact is worth a few trillion - and thus, it’ll go through
Click to expand...
Nah, the courts ruled that a contract exists between the parties and thus remuneration for the idea is due as a percentage of revenue generated by the idea.
Dolby said:
You’ll notice most the backers simply say ‘but the court decided’ to most questions you pose
Click to expand...
You'll notice that most of the critics of the court's decisions simply ignore the basis for the claim and that many of the arguments have already been ventilated in court by the parties. They would know this if they spent the time to read the judgments rather than argue on a forum that courts decisions are somehow irrelevant to their feelings.
 
quovadis said:
Nah, the courts ruled that a contract exists between the parties and thus remuneration for the idea is due as a percentage of revenue generated by the idea.
Click to expand...
To co-nitpick...

The ConCourt ruled there was a verbal agreement. It didn't stipulate that compensation should be a percentage of revenue.

(Also the judges raked Vodacom for not calling Geissler as a witness. His version of events was never really aired.)

The percentage revenue thing only came up because Vodacom offered it as an option as part of Shameel Joosub's compensation calculation.

Makate then dragged that calculation back to court and it's the High Court and Supreme Court that have effectively said it should be a percentage of revenue, with the SCA saying Vodaocm should use Makate's models.
 
Jan said:
To co-nitpick...

The ConCourt ruled there was a verbal agreement. It didn't stipulate that compensation should be a percentage of revenue.
Click to expand...
Verbal agreement = a contract. And yes they did stipulate insofar as the order...

The decision referred to in paragraph 1 is substituted with a decision that the applicant is entitled to be paid 5% – 7.5% of the total revenue of the PCM product from March 2001 to date of judgment by the Second Respondent, together with the mora interest thereon, alternatively interest in terms of Section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, 55 of 1975 as amended, and that the total revenue of the PCM product shall be that set out in Model 9A, 9B & 9BB submitted to the First Respondent by the Applicant (Annexure “NM30” – “NM32” to the Supplementary Founding Affidavit)
Jan said:
Makate then dragged that calculation back to court and it's the High Court and Supreme Court that have effectively said it should be a percentage of revenue, with the SCA saying Vodaocm should use Makate's models.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Dolby said:
Basically the court decided that a stolen non-executed idea with no contact is worth a few trillion - and thus, it’ll go through

You’ll notice most the backers simply say ‘but the court decided’ to most questions you pose
Click to expand...
Beat me to it. Was about to tag you. :)
 
quovadis said:
The decision referred to in paragraph 1 is substituted with a decision that the applicant is entitled to be paid 5% – 7.5% of the total revenue of the PCM product from March 2001 to date of judgment by the Second Respondent, together with the mora interest thereon, alternatively interest in terms of Section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, 55 of 1975 as amended, and that the total revenue of the PCM product shall be that set out in Model 9A, 9B & 9BB submitted to the First Respondent by the Applicant (Annexure “NM30” – “NM32” to the Supplementary Founding Affidavit)
Click to expand...
Yes, that was the SCA's order. Not the ConCourt.
 
Jan said:
To co-nitpick...

The ConCourt ruled there was a verbal agreement. It didn't stipulate that compensation should be a percentage of revenue.

(Also the judges raked Vodacom for not calling Geissler as a witness. His version of events was never really aired.)

The percentage revenue thing only came up because Vodacom offered it as an option as part of Shameel Joosub's compensation calculation.

Makate then dragged that calculation back to court and it's the High Court and Supreme Court that have effectively said it should be a percentage of revenue, with the SCA saying Vodaocm should use Makate's models.
Click to expand...
Yep, the court of Zumanomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter