Vodacom Please Call Me - The truth

SilverCode said:
What irks me is he didn't invent anything. He had an idea (don't know if it was his own). Ideas are a dime a dozen, but to invent something to have to show the idea and how it would be implemented and actually put in some sort of work to come up with a minimum viable solution.

Someone coming up with an idea to land on mars is not an inventor. Someone putting together a detailed specification on a rocket to land on mars and maybe even building a proof of concept, is an inventor.

This guy maybe had an idea that he threw against a wall and lo an behold it stuck. The engineers who worked for Vodacom/MTN actually invented the technology to allow Please Call Me.

Ideas are worth nothing without action, and this guy should receive nothing.
Click to expand...

What about the caveman who came up with the idea for the wheel........?

It didn't need much 'invention' when he realised how brilliant his idea was. Once the commercial potential of that idea was exploited, the rest is history.

Makate's PCM 'idea' had a similar effect on Vodacom/Vodafone's bottom line, running into $Billions over the last 18 years while he got nothing for it. Geddit?
 
Ubuntu_Babe said:
....however Toxic, he did have an idea that he 'pitched' to Vodacom over 18 year ago, which they ran with and made $Billions out of it while he hasn't received one cent from his idea to date.....thieving b@stards!!!!!
Click to expand...

You still blubbering on in support of your greedy little gold-digger? A bit pointless surely - Scameelperd has apparently made his determination and Makate has run out of courts to whine to, so the matter is surely now closed.

PS. I always use my speling chequer.
 
Gordon_R said:
There is an interesting comment attached to the MyBB article, which quotes part of the court record:



So much misinformation in every thread on this topic. The MTN patent was not the same as the Please Call Me system.
Click to expand...

It has the same underlying principle.
Ubuntu_Babe said:
Makate lost his first case based around the Apartheid-era law on prescription, which said that 3 years or more had passed since his original agreement with Gleisser in 2000. (What an kaak law, which helps the scoundrels who owe money and then use this law to get off the hook!) He went to the Supreme Court to fight his case and he lost there as well.
Click to expand...

Once people think it is necessary to bring in Apartheid to strengthen their argument I lose respect for them. Most of SA laws has their roots in Dutch and colonial history. You think every law had to be rewritten in 1994?
 
Vrotappel said:
It has the same underlying principle.


Once people think it is necessary to bring in Apartheid to strengthen their argument I lose respect for them. Most of SA laws has their roots in Dutch and colonial history. You think every law had to be rewritten in 1994?
Click to expand...

Vrotappel, I'm not sure how good your English is but I'll try again. I was pointing out that an old Apartheid law on prescription was used by Vodacom to argue why the case should not be heard on it's merits, in that the 'debt' owed by them to Makate had 'expired' after 3 years. The courts are the last refuge of the scoundrel. In Vodacom's case this is particularly true.

Please don't lose respect for me, because you might have difficulty understanding English or the facts of this case, which you can research yourself, if you are bothered enough to do so.
 
irBosOtter said:
Ag shame babe, don't get your panties in a knot mkay?
Click to expand...

Obviously a Misogynist as well. Mark me down as disappointed Otter. Your sexist and crude comments doesn't do anything for your credibility, so please keep that in mind when you write your next reply.
 
rwenzori said:
You still blubbering on in support of your greedy little gold-digger? A bit pointless surely - Scameelperd has apparently made his determination and Makate has run out of courts to whine to, so the matter is surely now closed.

PS. I always use my speling chequer.
Click to expand...

Dear oh dear rwenzori. Is the hostility and rudeness really necessary in this debate?

The dilemma that Vodacom have (and given their appalling behaviour towards Makate to date in this matter) is that they will have to justify how they came up with the 'settlement' amount, as the Court ordered them to enter into negotiations with Makate 'in good faith', and that it wasn't to be a 'window-dressing exercise.

They are alive to what transpired over the last 18 years in this case, and would have been mindful that they would be putting their trust in Shameel the Vodacom CEO to be an impartial deadlock-breaker if they failed to negitiate a settlement with Makate. Both parties would make their representations and he would decide on a figure which would be 'reasonable compensation' for Makate for his brilliant idea, which they profited to the tune of $Billions from, while he got nothing.

Makate has publicly said that their 'settlement' was an insult, which is presumably a derisory figure slightly more than the R10M that they offered him previously and not proportional in any way to the $Billions that they made from his PCM idea.

Remember that Shameel is akin to the fox being asked to look after security for the henhouse. He's not impartial, and he's job depends on serving Vodacom's interests rather than Makate's in coming to a settlement with him. Makate is well within his rights to approach the Con Court again to argue that Vodacom have not acted in good faith once again, and they can then decide to appoint an independent party to come to a settlement figure on their behalf, as it's clear that Vodacom cannot be trusted to do this themselves.

This could backfire badly on Vodacom, as the courts could order that all revenues generated as a result of PCM should be considered, including where Vodafone rolled it out in other territories. This could have serious implications for their share price, which would really hurt them badly. That should sober them up.

In the court of public opinion the people have yet to pronounce on this matter. If Makate hasn't given up on this after 18 years, he's unlikely to do so now.

There are a few more rounds to go in this fight.....
 
Ubuntu_Babe said:
Vrotappel, I'm not sure how good your English is but I'll try again. I was pointing out that an old Apartheid law on prescription was used by Vodacom to argue why the case should not be heard on it's merits, in that the 'debt' owed by them to Makate had 'expired' after 3 years. The courts are the last refuge of the scoundrel. In Vodacom's case this is particularly true.

Please don't lose respect for me, because you might have difficulty understanding English or the facts of this case, which you can research yourself, if you are bothered enough to do so.
Click to expand...

I am pointing out to you by referencing the law as an apartheid law does not gain you any points. A law is a law irrespective of when it got on the books.

It seems you think by playing the Apartheid card you add some strength to your argument. Some news for you, it doesn't.
 
Funny how many are crying that the EFF is not there to fight the cause because it is insinuated that they were bribed. What the EFF did to VC last year was criminal, they all should be in jail for it. Criminal scum belongs in jail. This is not a cause for the EFF so if they get involved and trash some stores again they should be prosecuted and locked up.
 
How does tax work on the compensation sum Vodacom wants to pay out to him?

For instance, lets say Vodacom wants to pay him R10 million.
Lawyers agreed that they will take 40% as payment from any compensation he gets (I don't know exact number)
Let's say SARS sees it as a 'bonus', so 40% tax on compensation.

So, if the above is true, he will only get about R2 million in his pocket.
 
Ubuntu_Babe said:
Vrotappel, I'm not sure how good your English is but I'll try again. I was pointing out that an old Apartheid law on prescription was used by Vodacom to argue why the case should not be heard on it's merits, in that the 'debt' owed by them to Makate had 'expired' after 3 years. The courts are the last refuge of the scoundrel. In Vodacom's case this is particularly true.
Click to expand...

This is a bad and entirely unnecessary argument to make. The law on prescription is the last refuge for poor black people who get tricked into dodgy credit deals.
 
Ubuntu_Babe said:
Vrotappel, I'm not sure how good your English is but I'll try again. I was pointing out that an old Apartheid law on prescription was used by Vodacom to argue why the case should not be heard on it's merits, in that the 'debt' owed by them to Makate had 'expired' after 3 years. The courts are the last refuge of the scoundrel. In Vodacom's case this is particularly true.

Please don't lose respect for me, because you might have difficulty understanding English or the facts of this case, which you can research yourself, if you are bothered enough to do so.
Click to expand...
It's a law of prescription, simple. It's not an apartheid law. Wake up and smell the coffee. Not everything is about black vs white. Vodacom is simple doing what every corporate entity with shareholders do. In this case it didn't work but it's not about screwing the black guy.

Okty said:
How does tax work on the compensation sum Vodacom wants to pay out to him?

For instance, lets say Vodacom wants to pay him R10 million.
Lawyers agreed that they will take 40% as payment from any compensation he gets (I don't know exact number)
Let's say SARS sees it as a 'bonus', so 40% tax on compensation.

So, if the above is true, he will only get about R2 million in his pocket.
Click to expand...
Income minus expenses. So if he gets R10m and the lawyers take R5m he will pay tax on R5m. To tell the truth he would be better off having it paid into a trust and only taking what's necessary. Otherwise Sars is really going to nail him on a one time payment.
 
Ubuntu_Babe said:
Vrotappel, I'm not sure how good your English is but I'll try again. I was pointing out that an old Apartheid law on prescription was used by Vodacom to argue why the case should not be heard on it's merits, in that the 'debt' owed by them to Makate had 'expired' after 3 years. The courts are the last refuge of the scoundrel. In Vodacom's case this is particularly true.

Please don't lose respect for me, because you might have difficulty understanding English or the facts of this case, which you can research yourself, if you are bothered enough to do so.
Click to expand...
So #woke

crylaugh.png
 
Swa said:
It's a law of prescription, simple. It's not an apartheid law. Wake up and smell the coffee. Not everything is about black vs white. Vodacom is simple doing what every corporate entity with shareholders do. In this case it didn't work but it's not about screwing the black guy.


Income minus expenses. So if he gets R10m and the lawyers take R5m he will pay tax on R5m. To tell the truth he would be better off having it paid into a trust and only taking what's necessary. Otherwise Sars is really going to nail him on a one time payment.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

It makes my example a little better. I think that is why he is probably rejecting/contesting Vodacom's offer. After all the deductions, he doesn't get much out vs the original amount.
 
rwenzori said:
You still blubbering on in support of your greedy little gold-digger? A bit pointless surely - Scameelperd has apparently made his determination and Makate has run out of courts to whine to, so the matter is surely now closed.

PS. I always use my speling chequer.
Click to expand...

Looks like Vodacom's share price has plunged lower than my neckline today. Very revealing.

It might go off a cliff at the end of the month if the Please Call Me movement mobilizes at the end of January, as Lesufi has threatened. It's down nearly 7% today.

This is getting interesting boys.............Vodacom Shareprice - 24 Jan 2019.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X