VODACOM DOUBLE STANDARDS
Introduction
The recent Call Me judgement against Vodacom has highlighted the issue of Vodacom acquiring technology through unethical means.
This is not a one-off occurrence, It is a practice that has been repeated by Vodacom when dealing with smaller technology companies.
The Vodacom basic strategy:
Vodacom is approached or invites a smaller technology company to present their product to Vodacom
Vodacom shows interest and offers attractive verbal agreements.
Vodacom then extracts Product details and samples under the guise of pre-implementation testing/ information for heads of agreement/ or any other means.
Vodacom then sever the relationship with the originator of the technology once they have the required information.
Vodacom then create/re-create the product and use it without having the originator involved.
A number of items make resolution of this practice very difficult :
When escalating the issue internally within Vodacom, the issue is simply ignored by the senior executive.
When sufficient pressure is applied, the matter is moved directly to the legal department. The legal departments view is quite clear You dont have a case, we will destroy you in court
The next logical step is to consider the legal option. Firstly, there is the matter of High Court costs. To proceed with a legal action against Vodacom you need approximately R1 000 000.00 (one million Rand) to get the process started, and will require a further R 1 000 000.00 (one million rand), to see this process to completion. A total of 2 million rand.
This 2 million rand does not ensure fair resolution, but only gets you into court, where you will need to face of the best corporate lawyers in the country, who are not bound by Vodacom's Business Code but are paid to win at all costs.
The bottom line, if you are a small company and your product is stolen by Vodacom, the following applies:
Vodacom will not adhere to their, or reasonable business principles
You will not get internal resolution, you will need to go to court.
You will need two million Rand which you can afford to lose.
You should expect to be subjected to every delaying, technical, and expense creating legal manoeuvre available
THE VODACOM CASES
Look4Me
(http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/2010...tole-our-ideas)
Vodacom partners with a small company (Gridwatch) which has developed a product. Vodacom extracts the technical specifications from Gridwatch, Vodacom CEO, Allen Knott-Craig gets his son to develop/bring in a similar product, and they drop Gridwatch. The result, Gridwatch lose their investment . Allan Knot-Craig admits to the partner in Gridwatch that he reckons he can get away with it.
Rodgers was asked by Vodacom's attorneys to hand over his product's technical specifications.
"We were in the process of drawing up the heads of agreement with Vodacom, and it was around that time when we were asked by their lawyers in a meeting to hand over the patent documents and the technical specifications. We agreed in good faith, as we were already trading in Vodacom stores. We didn't suspect anything."
Overview of the main strategy:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
NumberSecure
http://www.noseweek.co.za/article/19...s-over-Vodacom
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/2010...tole-our-ideas
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthre...acom-Killed-Me
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/busine...e-listing.html
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-149736453.html
Johannesburg - Dieter Sauerbier, according to friends, was an "intelligent" man with a "gentle soul"
Kevin Jenkins, managing director of Number Secure, and Barry Blackburn, director of sales at Vodacomsigned a partnership to provide a new storage application to back up user contact information.
The 24-month agreement stipulated that users would be charged a R5.70 subscription fee along with R2 for pushing data to a storage centre to be backed up in case a user lost a phone.
Pretoria High Court application filed by Number Secure in March 2006. The agreement was delayed more than eight times by Vodacom, with a final date set for August 2005.
The matter was taken to court with the initial court date was set for November 2007, then postponed until April 2008 and finally cancelled.
In a Noseweek article entitled Vodacom Killed Me Jenkins business partner Dieter Sauerbier, was found with a note that read: Barry Blackburn and Vodacom killed me, in the end I merely pulled the trigger.
Vodacom denies the allegations of neglect.
Overview of Vodacom strategy:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
AirTime Advance
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?opt...ssal&catid=260
http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/...-idea-20160310
A small company, Ndabenhle Business Enterprises, presents a product idea to Vodacom, Vodacom initially rejects the idea, and then brings out the same product a little later without the initial company being involved.
The company takes them to court, Vodacom attempts to get it dismissed on a technicality.
Responding to ITWeb, a Vodacom spokesperson said: "Vodacom is defending this action and is seeking a dismissal of the case on the ground that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The claim is not supported by facts and pertinent evidence."
Overview:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
Pieter van Vuuren
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?opt...ticle&id=58707
http://www.showintegrity.co.za/
https://www.facebook.com/showintegrity
Vodacom invited him in to come in to present his product, a specific presentation technology that incorporated graphic, 2d animation and video footage. Verbal promises made by Vodacom re the use of the product and orders. Vodacom extracted Technical details and samples under the pretence of pre-implementation technical testing. Vodacom then handed the samples and details to one of their primary suppliers and then cut the relationship with van Vuuren. When the matter was escalated to senior management, it remained unresolved, and then Vodacom's lawyers told him that he was to small to mess with them and to bugger off, or face their wrath.
The issue was escalated to Group MD, Pieter Uys's office and assurances were given that the issue would be sorted out. They were not.
In an attempt to sort this issue out van Vuuren contacted Vodafone, the UK owners of Vodacom. After initial assurances that they would follow this matter up, they were never heard from them again. Following this, van Vuuren sent the details to the Vodafone shareholders committee. They didnt reply but the Vodacom legal department did. Jody Farah (Chief executive of the legal department) told van Vuuren in short that he should let this go, or the Vodacom lawyers would come after him.
My experience in dealing with Vodacom, and in trying to rectify the situation has shown that the statements that Vodacom have published about their Accountability, Responsibility and Integrity are worthless. The repercussions on my small company and family have been disastrous.
NOTE:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
Call Me
http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/...entor-20160426
http://ewn.co.za/2016/04/26/Vodacom-...ll-me-inventor
And finally, the recent Call Me issue. The Theft of an idea presented by a Vodacom Employee, Nkosana Makate, to his manager.
The Vodacom MD falsely claimed it was his idea, wrote it in his book and was later forced to admit this fraud in court. Even after the fraud was proven and that Vodacom were guilty, Vodacom initially got off on a legal technicality. When this decision was challenged in the Constitutional court, the decision was overturned, and the matter was resolved.
Justice Chris Jafta says the decision taken by the mobile network service provider not to compensate Makate for his please call me concept is unfortunate and unethical.
Having admitted that it had used Mr Makates idea to develop the please call me service, it was not ethical for Vodacom to refuse to compensate him.
Vodacoms conduct in this case leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
What compounds the matter is the fact that Vodacom entered into a contract with him, under which it now sought to avoid liability by raising technical defences.
The High Court previously found that former Vodacom CEO Alan Knott-Craig tried to write Makate out of the concept for financial reasons.
IN CONCLUSION
It is clear from the above examples that Vodacom are quite comfortable with repeatedly using this strategy to acquire technology products from small companies, at no cost. The reasons are not difficult to understand, it saves them money, and they are more that likely going to get away with it.
The unanswered question is by whom, and how, is this practice going to be brought to an end
Vodacom's declared business principles,
http://www.vodacom.co.za/cs/groups/p..._statement.pdf
END.
Introduction
The recent Call Me judgement against Vodacom has highlighted the issue of Vodacom acquiring technology through unethical means.
This is not a one-off occurrence, It is a practice that has been repeated by Vodacom when dealing with smaller technology companies.
The Vodacom basic strategy:
Vodacom is approached or invites a smaller technology company to present their product to Vodacom
Vodacom shows interest and offers attractive verbal agreements.
Vodacom then extracts Product details and samples under the guise of pre-implementation testing/ information for heads of agreement/ or any other means.
Vodacom then sever the relationship with the originator of the technology once they have the required information.
Vodacom then create/re-create the product and use it without having the originator involved.
A number of items make resolution of this practice very difficult :
When escalating the issue internally within Vodacom, the issue is simply ignored by the senior executive.
When sufficient pressure is applied, the matter is moved directly to the legal department. The legal departments view is quite clear You dont have a case, we will destroy you in court
The next logical step is to consider the legal option. Firstly, there is the matter of High Court costs. To proceed with a legal action against Vodacom you need approximately R1 000 000.00 (one million Rand) to get the process started, and will require a further R 1 000 000.00 (one million rand), to see this process to completion. A total of 2 million rand.
This 2 million rand does not ensure fair resolution, but only gets you into court, where you will need to face of the best corporate lawyers in the country, who are not bound by Vodacom's Business Code but are paid to win at all costs.
The bottom line, if you are a small company and your product is stolen by Vodacom, the following applies:
Vodacom will not adhere to their, or reasonable business principles
You will not get internal resolution, you will need to go to court.
You will need two million Rand which you can afford to lose.
You should expect to be subjected to every delaying, technical, and expense creating legal manoeuvre available
THE VODACOM CASES
Look4Me
(http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/2010...tole-our-ideas)
Vodacom partners with a small company (Gridwatch) which has developed a product. Vodacom extracts the technical specifications from Gridwatch, Vodacom CEO, Allen Knott-Craig gets his son to develop/bring in a similar product, and they drop Gridwatch. The result, Gridwatch lose their investment . Allan Knot-Craig admits to the partner in Gridwatch that he reckons he can get away with it.
Rodgers was asked by Vodacom's attorneys to hand over his product's technical specifications.
"We were in the process of drawing up the heads of agreement with Vodacom, and it was around that time when we were asked by their lawyers in a meeting to hand over the patent documents and the technical specifications. We agreed in good faith, as we were already trading in Vodacom stores. We didn't suspect anything."
Overview of the main strategy:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
NumberSecure
http://www.noseweek.co.za/article/19...s-over-Vodacom
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/2010...tole-our-ideas
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthre...acom-Killed-Me
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/busine...e-listing.html
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-149736453.html
Johannesburg - Dieter Sauerbier, according to friends, was an "intelligent" man with a "gentle soul"
Kevin Jenkins, managing director of Number Secure, and Barry Blackburn, director of sales at Vodacomsigned a partnership to provide a new storage application to back up user contact information.
The 24-month agreement stipulated that users would be charged a R5.70 subscription fee along with R2 for pushing data to a storage centre to be backed up in case a user lost a phone.
Pretoria High Court application filed by Number Secure in March 2006. The agreement was delayed more than eight times by Vodacom, with a final date set for August 2005.
The matter was taken to court with the initial court date was set for November 2007, then postponed until April 2008 and finally cancelled.
In a Noseweek article entitled Vodacom Killed Me Jenkins business partner Dieter Sauerbier, was found with a note that read: Barry Blackburn and Vodacom killed me, in the end I merely pulled the trigger.
Vodacom denies the allegations of neglect.
Overview of Vodacom strategy:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
AirTime Advance
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?opt...ssal&catid=260
http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/...-idea-20160310
A small company, Ndabenhle Business Enterprises, presents a product idea to Vodacom, Vodacom initially rejects the idea, and then brings out the same product a little later without the initial company being involved.
The company takes them to court, Vodacom attempts to get it dismissed on a technicality.
Responding to ITWeb, a Vodacom spokesperson said: "Vodacom is defending this action and is seeking a dismissal of the case on the ground that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The claim is not supported by facts and pertinent evidence."
Overview:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
Pieter van Vuuren
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?opt...ticle&id=58707
http://www.showintegrity.co.za/
https://www.facebook.com/showintegrity
Vodacom invited him in to come in to present his product, a specific presentation technology that incorporated graphic, 2d animation and video footage. Verbal promises made by Vodacom re the use of the product and orders. Vodacom extracted Technical details and samples under the pretence of pre-implementation technical testing. Vodacom then handed the samples and details to one of their primary suppliers and then cut the relationship with van Vuuren. When the matter was escalated to senior management, it remained unresolved, and then Vodacom's lawyers told him that he was to small to mess with them and to bugger off, or face their wrath.
The issue was escalated to Group MD, Pieter Uys's office and assurances were given that the issue would be sorted out. They were not.
In an attempt to sort this issue out van Vuuren contacted Vodafone, the UK owners of Vodacom. After initial assurances that they would follow this matter up, they were never heard from them again. Following this, van Vuuren sent the details to the Vodafone shareholders committee. They didnt reply but the Vodacom legal department did. Jody Farah (Chief executive of the legal department) told van Vuuren in short that he should let this go, or the Vodacom lawyers would come after him.
My experience in dealing with Vodacom, and in trying to rectify the situation has shown that the statements that Vodacom have published about their Accountability, Responsibility and Integrity are worthless. The repercussions on my small company and family have been disastrous.
NOTE:
Partnering with a smaller company.
Extracting the product details.
Cutting ties with the smaller company.
Producing the product themselves.
Call Me
http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/...entor-20160426
http://ewn.co.za/2016/04/26/Vodacom-...ll-me-inventor
And finally, the recent Call Me issue. The Theft of an idea presented by a Vodacom Employee, Nkosana Makate, to his manager.
The Vodacom MD falsely claimed it was his idea, wrote it in his book and was later forced to admit this fraud in court. Even after the fraud was proven and that Vodacom were guilty, Vodacom initially got off on a legal technicality. When this decision was challenged in the Constitutional court, the decision was overturned, and the matter was resolved.
Justice Chris Jafta says the decision taken by the mobile network service provider not to compensate Makate for his please call me concept is unfortunate and unethical.
Having admitted that it had used Mr Makates idea to develop the please call me service, it was not ethical for Vodacom to refuse to compensate him.
Vodacoms conduct in this case leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
What compounds the matter is the fact that Vodacom entered into a contract with him, under which it now sought to avoid liability by raising technical defences.
The High Court previously found that former Vodacom CEO Alan Knott-Craig tried to write Makate out of the concept for financial reasons.
IN CONCLUSION
It is clear from the above examples that Vodacom are quite comfortable with repeatedly using this strategy to acquire technology products from small companies, at no cost. The reasons are not difficult to understand, it saves them money, and they are more that likely going to get away with it.
The unanswered question is by whom, and how, is this practice going to be brought to an end
Vodacom's declared business principles,
http://www.vodacom.co.za/cs/groups/p..._statement.pdf
END.