Vodacom Please Call Me - The truth

[graybeard]

The biggest headache I can see for the bloke is that the legal fees may exceed (or have already exceeded) the value of any possible payout. So he might still end up with sweet bugger-all as it has all gone to the lawyers and backers, AND, to make matters worse, he'll then be owing THEM (the lawyers and backers) a barrow-full of money still.

 

[Gordon_R]

View attachment 605490
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.pdf

The concluding remarks are more telling than the judgement itself:

Concluding remarks
[104] The stance taken by Vodacom in this litigation is unfortunate. It is not
consistent with what was expected of a company that heaped praises on the applicant
for his brilliant idea on which its “Please Call Me” service was constructed. The
service had become so popular and profitable that revenue in huge sums of money
was generated, for Vodacom to smile all the way to the bank. Yet it did not compensate
the applicant even with a penny for his idea. No smile was brought to his face for his
innovation. This is besides the fact that Vodacom may have been entitled to raise the
legal defences it advanced. As a party, it was entitled to have its day in court and
have those defences adjudicated. This is guaranteed by section 34 of the Constitution.
However, it is ironic that in pursuit of its constitutional right, Vodacom invoked
legislation from the height of the apartheid era, to prevent the applicant from
exercising the same right.

[105] In not compensating the applicant and persisting in advancing the legal
defences even after the trial Court had emphatically found that an agreement was
concluded, Vodacom associated itself with the dishonourable conduct of its former
CEO, Mr Knott-Craig and his colleague, Mr Geissler. This leaves a sour taste in the
mouth. It is not the kind of conduct to be expected from an ethical corporate entity.

 

[ISP cash cow]

Vodacom and specifically Knott Craig are dishonest

That the highest Court ruled Makate invented the idea is clear

That Vodacom are involved in a massive effort to sway public opinion is also clear

I hope the court orders an independent valuation as Vodacom.cannot be trusted on any prospect of a reasonable solution to be offered

Makate did not "invent" please call me. he gave an "idea" of a product to Vodacom of which they carried out the process. Makate had nothing to do with the invention nor the development of the actual product.

Invent: create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of

Vodacom in the court papers have never declared he was the inventor, their actual words were

“Vodacom has launched a new product called ‘Call Me’, thanks to Kenneth Makate from our finance department. Kenneth suggested the service to the product development team, which immediately took up the idea. ‘Call Me’ is a world first and allows Vodago prepaid users to send a free text message to other Vodacom customers requesting that they call them back. The main aim of this product is to JAFTA J 5 allow Vodacom users who do not have balances on their accounts to keep in touch with their families and loved ones.”

Yeah Makate was a trainee accountant and not even on the development team and so how can he be classed as the "inventor"

He deserves ****

 

[3Gee]

I see the article has been updated with the court case topic. Re-read it again.

As stated; the issue was never about who invented it or not. All the comments above on that aspect are completely off-topic.

This is the way i see it,

a senior party at Vodacom made promises to a employee regarding an idea

The senior party took full credit for the idea and simply gave the employee a pat on the back, never honouring his promise

The company board appointed this senior party.

Courts found in favor of the employee.

The company should cover the employee's legal costs and renumerate him with a reasonable amount of money.

A few million. What further arrangements he made with his legal teams is his problem

Case closed.

 

[rwenzori]

The concluding remarks are more telling than the judgement itself:

Well yes, Vodacom did come out of this smelling of turds. Nevertheless Makate did not originate the 'brilliant idea' and the ConCourt should have looked into this. In any event Vodacom have now complied with the ConCourt's ruling and determined an amount. I hope it is not too much, but, case closed.

 

[Peter_123]

I read your article with utter shock and disgust at how you have gone to great lengths to discredit Makate; how you have ingeniously articulated your article to paint him as a thief. It reminds me of the Chirs Barnard and Hamilton Naki story. Of course take all the credit from a black man, what else is new! Hiding behind telling the "full story behind...who really invented it" is not going to fool all of us.

• This case was not about who invented the original please call me concept. Kahn did! Makate however did invent the idea in so far as making sure that the person that sends the 'please call me' message can do it without having any airtime whatsoever and therein lies the difference. Even Makate himself makes this distinction in his email to his boss, acknowleding the presence of a similar product in the market whilst making his distinction, but of course you are not at all interested in the real truth but just to discredit the black man. Makate took it one step further whilst Kahn was sleeping and his idea was economically viable and profitable thus the entitlement to compensation.History is littered with same e.g. Uber, Amazon, Facebook, Nintendo etc. Microsoft also had the idea for a personal tablet years before Apple. Makate is what's normally termed a 'late, early adopter'.Google also did it with Yahoo. Whether Makate succeeds with getting a reasonable compensation is doubtful since the CC said the CEO must be the final decider on what's reasonable. But Makate may take it up on review and his success depends on whether he can prove fraud or impartiality on the part of the CEO - as though the CEO who has shares can really be impartial.Not possible!
• At no point do you quote what Makate stated in his claim throughout your whole article whatsoever except for the part about his response that there was no agreement.
• Allan Knott Craig, Geissler and Vodacom were all slated by the courts for their false narrative. In defending them you include a link to Craig's statement which by the way was an empty face-saving exercise after the verdict. He claimed ownership of the idea in his autobiography. Please read.
• Vodacom lied in court saying that (1)there was no agreement to remunerate Makate notwithstanding proof to the contrary - an assertion correctly thrown out by the trial court, (2) that the claim had prescribed and (3)that Gessler did not have authority to enter into an agreement with Makate. The latter two arguments were also lost by Vodacom in court.
• You go to great lengths by choosing parts of Kahn's statement to support your story that he came up with the invention also again including a link to Kahn with nothing whatsoever from Makate and how he came up with the improved idea. Utter disgrace! Is this what you call unbiased and balanced reporting?
• That Kahn believes that Makate should not get credit for the idea should, at best, be a footnote and is not surprising because Kahn couldn't get the billions himself. He was not even part of the legal process yet sends an email to Joosub advising them how to approach the matter! And you feel that this is relevant news in telling us the "full story". Really?
• How you choose to include the comment by Kahn about the 'small guy' and the 'big bully' is incredible. You are in fact defending Vodacom but hiding behind Khans comment. Shame on you!

Helen Burt (Michalsons.com) gives a legal factual summation:
"The South African legal position – in a nutshell
South African intellectual property laws permits the transfer of ownership of intellectual property created by an employee to an employer where it has been made “in the course and scope of” the employee’s employment. Generally, this position is made expressly clear in employees’ employment contracts.
In Makate v Vodacom, however, the “Please call me” idea was unrelated to Makate’s role as a trainee accountant.

The idea was developed in Malate’s spare time and outside the scope of his employment with Vodacom. Vodacom’s Managing Director even enthusiastically praised Makate in an internal newsletter stating ‘… the idea of the product came from one of our staff members whose job is not in any way related to product development’.​

Vodacom could never, therefore, have had any legitimate claim to ownership of “Please call me”, at most they could have obtained a right to use the idea in their products, which is what they orally agreed with Makate to do." Now that's sensible, truthful, factual unbisded don't you think?
I applaud you on how - judging by the input of people - you have managed to convince them, using the guise of telling the whole story, that Makate is not entitled to a cent regardless of what the Constitutional court says. The employer made a promise and entered into an agreement; they must abide by it. Period! You examplify what Trump hates with the media. Maybe Vodacom sponsors you thus the biased article.
Why don't you put your name on the article instead of hiding behind 'Staff Writer'. I bet you are white and its the same old story as reflected in all messages: Blacks support Makate whilst Whites don't, regardless of the facts. How sad!
Joosub is Indian and not sure about Khan so no chance of Makate being a black man getting anything close to reasonable.Very sad!!!

 

[Peter_123]

For some reason people think that a corporation offering to pay an employee 15% of the revenue from an idea presented by the employee is standard operating procedure. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The legal FACT in intellectual property law is that that the employer owns any and all IP created by an employee related to his work. So even if MTN was not involved, since this guy worked for Vodacom and came up with an idea for Vodacom, they already own the idea and the employee has already been compensated by getting a salary every month.
Most companies will give an employee nothing or nearly nothing for a patent, I have one (registered internationally) myself for which I received the princely sum of R10.
If Vodacom is offering this guy a Million or R10Million, then they are actually doing him a helluva favour.
R1billion, is utter bull.
There is a reason the Constitutional Court did not make a determination of an amount, they just said "while he worked there he was promised reasonable compensation", and under that presumption Vodacom should negotiate a reasonable settlement with him. Obviously they are deadlocked since he doesn't want to budge from his unreasonable demand.
If Vodacom offered him a months salary when all this started he would have been happy as a clam, and used the money to pay a deposit on a new 3 series BMW. Now since every second lawyer in RSA has him signed up for a part of the pie he believes he is owed 15%.
His lawyers also know this, which is why he is trying to go to the court of public opinion. If a judge was pressed to set an amount he would get less than the lawyers cost for a day. He might actually get R10 if the judge was unimpressed enough!

The case is not about who invented the please call me concept . Please familiarise yourself, Mr BMW!

 

[Peter_123]

Unfortunately this article also got it completely wrong.

The CC ruling was not about who invented the service at all. As pointed out above, IP typically belongs to the employer.

Rather it ruled on a previous offer for some compensation. The CC then rules the CEO must come up with a reasonable compensation. Nothing about any negotiation between the parties.

Would be good to read the court ruling.

Well said,Sir. Wish they had read and familiarise themselves with the concourt judgement and the facts of the case before writing such biased article.

 

[rwenzori]

I read your article with utter shock and disgust at how you have gone to great lengths to discredit Makate;
Blah blah whine.

It doesn't matter, two-post wonder. Vodacom CEO has complied with the ruling, and Makate gets whatever said CEO determined. It is overs cadovers. Personally I think he deserves f-all, the little gold-digger, but no doubt he will be getting something more.

 

[krycor]

Well said,Sir. Wish they had read and familiarise themselves with the concourt judgement and the facts of the case before writing such biased article.

I don't think the article is biased .. the guy claims he invented the service which complete BS and he keeps referring to it as such because he knows the public would react differently knowing that it was merely implementing and he didn't implement either.

The entire case hinges on the compensation allegedly offered.. but again.. MTN at any stage can weigh and claim for patent infringement for the duration too.. i reckon if there is a huge settlement, MTN will likely take up a case of patent infringement. There is no such a thing as free lunch when u copy it.

 

[MrGray]

It sounds like the only thing this guy may have truly contributed was the thought that the please call me could be sent for free using what is (I think) essentially zero rated USSD. But the please call me concept wasn't new and I'd argue that sending a free request like that would have logically arisen as an entirely obvious part of the product development process anyway. So his claim seems to rest on a senior manager promising he'll get some additional compensation for that idea - not sure how that equates to 15% of the profits. So, all in all, If I were this Makate guy I'd take whatever scraps Vodacom tossed my way and call it a day.

 

[Kloofvreter]

 

[ArtyLoop]

The concluding remarks are more telling than the judgement itself:

The last line doesn't apply. Cartel and ethical company don't go together.

 

[ISP cash cow]

Well said,Sir. Wish they had read and familiarise themselves with the concourt judgement and the facts of the case before writing such biased article.

all these single digit new posters in this thread seems to me it is one person trying to create an impression of "multiple supporters" for Makate

 

[MarlRon]

He is entitled to absolute zip, firstly he was gainfully employed by Vodacom at the time, and secondly MTN had offered the service to customers way before, and finally the cabinet ministers really show their ignorance with silly remarks.

 

[Gordon_R]

He is entitled to absolute zip, firstly he was gainfully employed by Vodacom at the time, and secondly MTN had offered the service to customers way before, and finally the cabinet ministers really show their ignorance with silly remarks.

Another single-digit poster who things they are smarter than the Constitutional Court: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.pdf

“(a) It is declared that Vodacom (Pty) Limited is bound by the agreement concluded by Mr
Kenneth Nkosana Makate and Mr Philip Geissler.
(b) Vodacom is ordered to commence negotiations in good faith with Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate for determining a reasonable compensation payable to him in terms of the agreement.

 

[Jola]

Another single-digit poster who things they are smarter than the Constitutional Court: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.pdf

Vodacom is only on the hook by the CC because they offered reasonable compensation.

IMHO one months' salary is more than reasonable in this case.

Oh, and BTW I typically don't support Vodacom in anything, I actually hate them. But here they are right.

 

[rwenzori]

Another single-digit poster who things they are smarter than the Constitutional Court: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.pdf

Concourt is Concourt, not Jesus, and they are sometimes a bit strange. I am not sure any of the courts got this one right.

I have also wondered whether Makate had gotten his 'brilliant idea' from some source other than his own imagination - never trusted that, as it seems the concept was not new at the time IIRC.

 

[Peter_123]

It doesn't matter, two-post wonder. Vodacom CEO has complied with the ruling, and Makate gets whatever said CEO determined. It is overs cadovers. Personally I think he deserves f-all, the little gold-digger, but no doubt he will be getting something more.

Is that the best argument you have? Really? Just blah blah blah. You are clearly an empty headed tabula rasa. What a waste of space! You are beneath me.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

This case was not about who invented the original please call me concept. Kahn did! Makate however did invent the idea in so far as making sure that the person that sends the 'please call me' message can do it without having any airtime whatsoever and therein lies the difference. Even Makate himself makes this distinction in his email to his boss, acknowleding the presence of a similar product in the market whilst making his distinction, but of course you are not at all interested in the real truth but just to discredit the black man.

You have set an amazing record. You discredited yourself in your first post. Truth? We actually know what prior art is. It has nothing to do with the amount of melanin as you end off claiming in your bolded part.

I suggest you go read up on Areva Martin before playing with the R-card again. If you actually want the truth? We are predominantly a tech crowd, quite curious and prone to actually digging into things.

I bid you a good day and weekend.