Vodacom shutdown threatened

rwenzori said:
Give him ten million ront, if he doesn't like it tell him to f-off.
Click to expand...

https://citizen.co.za/news/south-af...is-crazy-says-please-call-me-inventor-makate/

Makate has called a R10-million settlement offer crazy, speaking on Metro FM on Tuesday. He says the estimated settlement is in the tens of billions
Click to expand...

Yeah... Makata can f-off. I feel the R10M settlement was MORE than generous. The fact that most of this will probably go to the lawyers who he naievely partnered with, and he'll get very little, is irrelevant.

I would usually side with the little guy, but in this case, Vodacom is 100% right. I'm just waiting for Makate to pull the race card. We know it's coming.
 
elvis_presley said:
https://citizen.co.za/news/south-af...is-crazy-says-please-call-me-inventor-makate/



Yeah... Makata can f-off. I feel the R10M settlement was MORE than generous. The fact that most of this will probably go to the lawyers who he naievely partnered with, and he'll get very little, is irrelevant.

I would usually side with the little guy, but in this case, Vodacom is 100% right. I'm just waiting for Makate to pull the race card. We know it's coming.
Click to expand...
Think he's feeling the pressure and the bills are mounting. Doubt he'd get much of 10 bar after legal fees. I don't have a horse in this race but I do hate vodacom with a passion, so if rather see them fork out to this fellow than give execs big bonuses. I highly doubt he's getting anything close to what he's hoping.
 
Swa said:
Why should salaries have a bearing on it? Vodacom paid way more than R100m in licensing for the tech they use so why should this be any different? They had their chance at the time but paid zero. Now it's known it probably made them a few billion over the years, but not R70bn. The only arguments I see are those who say billion and those who say a few thousand. Nobody is looking at the middle ground.

Answer these questions:
How much (%) is an idea such as this worth?
How much did Vodacom make from it?


Also asked and answered and dealt with by the court.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your valuable contribution.
 
Oi yoi yoi.

Adds a new dimension to the old saying "ideas have consequences".

And a good reminder that the distinguishing human feature is the rational intellect. But there are still people like @Johnatan56 who don't think there's such a thing as Intellectual Property, and it can't be misappropriated.
 
Last edited:
Whright said:
**** him, give him 29 rond pre paid airtime with a old Alcatel cell phone, and tell him to tsek.
Click to expand...
I agree with the sentiment, not with the payment. It just sounds Whrong :ROFL:

At the end of the day:
The then trainee accountant said he wanted to be able to send a message that cost him nothing to be able to send a message to the recipient, who would then be alerted to call back.

“The calculation is very easy, we’ve deployed experts for about 10 days to Vodacom, and we were able to do calculations, and we also did calculations from public available information that are part of our submission before Shameel [Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub].”
Click to expand...
Much of all this has already played out in court and all that is left as to a fair determination of what would be a reward for something he got a salary for anyway. Remember, this was prior art.

Yet now we see this movement label him "Please Call Me Inventor". Kuk story. We even had the movement here on our own forums trying to garner sympathy with this bull.
 
PsyWulf said:
He didn't invent it,Vodacom wasn't even first with it
Click to expand...

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant - he is credited with it as far as Vodacom is concerned and as far as our courts are concerned. Vodacom has only themselves to blame.
 
quovadis said:
Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant - he is credited with it as far as Vodacom is concerned and as far as our courts are concerned. Vodacom has only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The court said no such thing.

This whole debacle would never have been if some manager had not said he would get a recognition for it. The court case was never about him inventing the idea, it was about him suggesting it in the Vodacom group. Then Vodacom, in line with general business practice where you do not deserve extra if you come up with a good idea in your job, decided to not pay him. However, the manager's decision was an agreement of recognition for initiative.

Perhaps go read the judgement.
 
Sollie said:
Wrong. The court said no such thing.

This whole debacle would never have been if some manager had not said he would get a recognition for it. The court case was never about him inventing the idea, it was about him suggesting it in the Vodacom group. Then Vodacom, in line with general business practice where you do not deserve extra if you come up with a good idea in your job, decided to not pay him. However, the manager's decision was an agreement of recognition for initiative.

Perhaps go read the judgement.
Click to expand...

What part of my statement was wrong?

#1 - The court recognised as fact that he came up with the idea, presented it to Vodacom and it was the basis for a new product which he was promised a revenue share should it become commercially viable.
#2 - If Vodacom had remunerated him in some way at the time it would've most likely have been a pittance compared to what they're in for now.
 
elvis_presley said:
That's why salaries do have a bearing on it. Companies try new things all the time to bring in business. Input costs to launch initiatives and campaigns that nett the company billions are well known. Nobody can agree on anything, which is why you need to find a comparable, quantifiable analog. I think it's reasonable to look at Please Call Me as a marketing initiative and work backwards.

Makate previously called a R10M offer "crazy" - his expectations are clearly delusional, there's no way this can end well for him.
Click to expand...
No they don't. You don't pay for intellectual property based on people's salaries. Vodacom are the ones that are delusional if they think R10m is in any way a reasonable offer after so much was spent to even get them to the point of paying. There's no reference for the R10m though.

It would have been simple if they paid him at the time and it would have been less than R10m. But corporate greed took over and they should pay a fair amount now. I have no sympathy for them. Now if the amount they want to pay is something like R500m (doubt it) then he should take it and go. But if it's only a few million I agree they should f-off and go back to the table.

Barbarian Conan said:
If I understand correctly, that is also not what Vodacom argued. They owe him money, mainly because some manager type said they would compensate him.

Compensate him for what, exactly though? He suggested the please call me idea? Right?
So it was something that others have already done, and he then went and suggested that Vodacom do it? How much is that worth?

R10 mil sounds pretty decent imo. Very generous actually.
Click to expand...
But Vodacom didn't do it now did they? Instead someone had to give them the idea and they agreed to compensation. It's that principle that is the issue and the court didn't fall for Vodacom's argument that it prescribed or that it was part of his contract.
 
quovadis said:
What part of my statement was wrong?

#1 - The court recognised as fact that he came up with the idea, presented it to Vodacom and it was the basis for a new product which he was promised a revenue share should it become commercially viable.
#2 - If Vodacom had remunerated him in some way at the time it would've most likely have been a pittance compared to what they're in for now.
Click to expand...

#2 - No argument your honour. Comment below ... :)

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant - he is credited with it as far as Vodacom is concerned and as far as our courts are concerned. Vodacom has only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
#1: The court did not recognize he came up with the idea. That was never tested, but they recognized Vodacom as saying that. A subtle difference with a massive impact ;)

It may seem pedantic, but it's this misunderstanding that causes this whole shyte storm.

The SC case was about two issues:
Did the manager have the right to make the promises and Vodacom be held liable?
Had the case prescribed or not?

[4] Meanwhile the applicant came up with an idea in terms of which the cellphone user who has no airtime would be able to send the request to the other cellphone user who has airtime to call the former. The idea was reduced to writing and the applicant consulted his superior and mentor at Vodacom for advice on how he could sell it to any of the cellphone service providers, including Vodacom. His mentor, Mr Lazarus Muchenje advised him to speak to the Director of Product Development and Management, Mr Philip Geissler.

[5] The applicant and Mr Geissler negotiated and agreed that Vodacom would use the applicant’s idea to develop a new product which would be put on trial for commercial viability. If the product was successful then the applicant would be paid a share in the revenue generated by it. Although the applicant had indicated that he wanted 15% of the revenue, the parties deferred their negotiations on the amount to be paid to the applicant for a later date. However, they agreed that in the event of them failing to agree on the amount, Vodacom’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would determine the amount.
Click to expand...

Issues
[31] Two main issues arise here. The first is whether the ostensible authority relied on by the applicant was established. In view of the High Court’s approach, two subsidiary questions also occur. These are whether ostensible authority was properly pleaded and whether the common law ought to be developed in present circumstances.

[32] The second main issue is whether the applicant’s claim had prescribed. The determination of this issue involves the proper interpretation of section 10(1) of the Prescription Act read with sections 11(d), 12(1) and 12(3). If it is true that the application of those provisions limited the applicant’s right of access to court, then their interpretation must accord with section 39(2) of the Constitution. This interpretive approach will in turn require us to reassess the construction that was assigned to the Prescription Act under the era of the supremacy of Parliament because now the Constitution is the supreme law. All laws, including the common law of interpretation, derive their validity from the Constitution. I address these issues in turn but before doing so I must quickly dispose of an additional issue raised by Vodacom.
Click to expand...
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.pdf

This judgement also slays Alan Knott-Craig.

Essentially what Vodacom did was try an renege on the deal by stalling it, not giving the dude some money, trying to say Alan came up with the idea etc. Then after stone walling him for years, try and say it had prescribed and that his manager did not have the rights to have made that deal. The moment that promise was made, the stage was set. That is why they could not use the prior art defense, that should have happened long before the manager made the promise.

But then again Makate was not exactly a boy scout either. We know that from the MTN patent, which opens up another can of worms.

So - Popcorn? Peanuts? ;)
 
Sollie said:
#1: The court did not recognize he came up with the idea. That was never tested, but they recognized Vodacom as saying that. A subtle difference with a massive impact ;)
Click to expand...

Semantics. The High Court judgment covered the plaintiffs "idea" in great detail (including existing patents) and even forcing Knott-Craig to admit the idea originally belonged to Makate. Makate had no standing if it wasn't recognised as his idea.

But then again Makate was not exactly a boy scout either. We know that from the MTN patent, which opens up another can of worms.
Click to expand...

MTN's patent was materially different - it utilised an IVR as the mechanism in which to initiate the "please call me" - it was covered in the case too.

Moving on now.
 
A question from my side

What are the tax implications for makate after he gets paid?
How will SARS treat the “income” ?
Will Vodacom have to withhold tax ?
Any insights into this?
 
Swa said:
No they don't. You don't pay for intellectual property based on people's salaries. Vodacom are the ones that are delusional if they think R10m is in any way a reasonable offer after so much was spent to even get them to the point of paying. There's no reference for the R10m though.

It would have been simple if they paid him at the time and it would have been less than R10m. But corporate greed took over and they should pay a fair amount now. I have no sympathy for them. Now if the amount they want to pay is something like R500m (doubt it) then he should take it and go. But if it's only a few million I agree they should f-off and go back to the table.


But Vodacom didn't do it now did they? Instead someone had to give them the idea and they agreed to compensation. It's that principle that is the issue and the court didn't fall for Vodacom's argument that it prescribed or that it was part of his contract.
Click to expand...

They agreed to compensation, but not a specific amount. Looking at what Makate brought them, the R10mil they offered is very generous.
 
Barbarian Conan said:
They agreed to compensation, but not a specific amount. Looking at what Makate brought them, the R10mil they offered is very generous.
Click to expand...
They should have agreed to an amount at the time and paid it. Looking at what it brought them over the years Makate is the one being generous in still entertaining them with their measly sums.
 
The way this clown is going, he's going to wind up not getting a cent in the end. He may as well accept Vodacom's offer right now and zip his lip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X