Vodacom’s R250 billion Please Call Me headache

If I was Makate, I would first gun MTN and claim 10% of all revenue generated by them too. Since Makate had the idea, he had it for 10-20 years before MTN registered the patent, after they heard about Makate's idea and stole the tech from him and developed it. MTN had such a big fright when this claim went to court, they did not even renew the IP on the PCM. So, gun them too. After that, hit all international Vodacoms that implemented PCMs in their countries and claim there too.
 
Come on Vodacom! You can do better. This has gone past reasonable reward, he's just a greedy shrill now. There must be a way to send him home with nothing.
 
Come on Vodacom! You can do better. This has gone past reasonable reward, he's just a greedy shrill now. There must be a way to send him home with nothing.

Will it be cheaper to buy the judges? That's the only way. Would you be OK with corporations bribing judges to get their way?
 
Will it be cheaper to buy the judges? That's the only way. Would you be OK with corporations bribing judges to get their way?
What makes you think the judges aren’t already bribed? Some of that R20Bn payday coming to Makate and his lawyers prob already apportioned to them.
 
Surely the best defence that Vodacom has is that he was an employee at the time and that his employment contract, presumably, had a clause in it that the company owns any intellectual property generated by its employees in the course of their work? I don't understand why this point is not emphasised more.
 
Surely the best defence that Vodacom has is that he was an employee at the time and that his employment contract, presumably, had a clause in it that the company owns any intellectual property generated by its employees in the course of their work? I don't understand why this point is not emphasised more.
They just have schit lawyers. If his contract didn't state it then they have even worse HR. In any event it could never have been his idea when MTN did it first...
 
They just have schit lawyers. If his contract didn't state it then they have even worse HR. In any event it could never have been his idea when MTN did it first...

It's not even a particularly clever idea. I have no idea how they even managed to get a patent for it. It's just a combination of 2 existing technologies - USSD and SMS. That's probably why MTN never enforced their patent, because it's a pretty shaky patent to begin with.
 
It's not even a particularly clever idea. I have no idea how they even managed to get a patent for it. It's just a combination of 2 existing technologies - USSD and SMS. That's probably why MTN never enforced their patent, because it's a pretty shaky patent to begin with.
People has been using missed calls long before that :ROFL:
Not to mention those ads after the basic text, that reads as if it is still part of the main text :mad:
 
It's not even a particularly clever idea. I have no idea how they even managed to get a patent for it. It's just a combination of 2 existing technologies - USSD and SMS. That's probably why MTN never enforced their patent, because it's a pretty shaky patent to begin with.
Whether they enforced the patent or not, the fact that they were first to market removes this stupid "my idea" nonsense...
 
I think Vodacom thought they stood a better chance against Makete than against Kahn.
I guess they are learning it’s not the size of the dog in the fight but…
 
Technically, Kahn, Et Al, are 100% correct.
However, Vodacom screwed up ROYALLY, praising his contribution, when they internally announced Please Call Me.
Add to that, Vodacom back then saying, "Ye, we did promise Makate a stipend."
 
It's not even a particularly clever idea. I have no idea how they even managed to get a patent for it. It's just a combination of 2 existing technologies - USSD and SMS. That's probably why MTN never enforced their patent, because it's a pretty shaky patent to begin with.
In 2014, a US patent expert named Zatkovich analysed the two implementations from MTN and Vodacom and showed how they were different. The court agreed with his testimony without challenge or dismissal. Vodacom till to this day has never disputed that testimony. If anyone has evidence that VC was able to persuade the courts otherwise in the later court proceedings, please share it.

 
Surely the best defence that Vodacom has is that he was an employee at the time and that his employment contract, presumably, had a clause in it that the company owns any intellectual property generated by its employees in the course of their work? I don't understand why this point is not emphasised more.
Because that's not how it works. It's only what is conducted during the "course and scope" of employment that belongs to the company. As an accountant it fell outside of that. Also there was an agreement to compensate him which ultimately decided the case.

It's not even a particularly clever idea. I have no idea how they even managed to get a patent for it. It's just a combination of 2 existing technologies - USSD and SMS. That's probably why MTN never enforced their patent, because it's a pretty shaky patent to begin with.
MTN also didn't patent it. Their patent is for a different IVR system and not a please call me system which is also too generally in use for the patent to be valid. This Kahn guy is also unduly trying to take credit for it and I don't know why mybb keeps on entertaining him.
 
In 2014, a US patent expert named Zatkovich analysed the two implementations from MTN and Vodacom and showed how they were different. The court agreed with his testimony without challenge or dismissal. Vodacom till to this day has never disputed that testimony. If anyone has evidence that VC was able to persuade the courts otherwise in the later court proceedings, please share it.

From the same witness

"The witness further testified concerning revenue: that it was possible to track the cost and the revenue generated by such a service. In the case of the “Please Call Me” service a number of “call backs’’ received for every “Please Call Me" message could be tracked by means of cross-referencing and by setting a time for a call back although this would not be completely accurate."

What defines a reasonable timeframe here? Is it 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or 3 hours? Who decides what's considered reasonable? Furthermore, just because I received a "please call me," does that mean I must call immediately? What if I already intended to call the person?

I doubt Vodacom will pay billions, they'll drag this out.
 
Back
Top