Dailymaverick logo

Business Maverick

This article is more than a year old

RINGING OFF THE HOOK

Key questions remain but, more critically, where is Nkosana Makate’s Please Call Me patent?

The truth is finally coming out about the long-running Please Call Me saga and the missing key ingredient is proof that Vodacom’s trainee accountant actually invented the call-back service and didn’t merely plagiarise the concept Ari Kahn patented.
Key questions remain but, more critically, where is Nkosana Makate’s Please Call Me patent? Illustrative image | Nkosana Makate; a phone receiving the Please Call me SMS. (Photo: Gallo Images / City Press / Leon Sadiki | Kyra Wilkinson)

If Nkosana Makate invented the Please Call Me service, the subject of the ongoing 15-year-old court case between him and cellphone company Vodacom, where is his patent? Or even his application for one?

The only patent application was submitted by former MTN engineer Ari Kahn and filed with the Patent Office on 22 January 2001. His patent was awarded the same day. Kahn briefed MTN’s legal representatives on 16 November 2000, having conceived of the idea the day before.

While Makate was a trainee accountant at Vodacom, Kahn was already developing highly technical solutions as lead data consultant at MTN from 1994 to 2002. He worked on a range of cutting-edge ideas for the then-nascent mobile industry, including a website that allowed anyone to send free SMSes to mobile numbers. In short, Kahn had the technical know-how to solve the then-complex technology problem.

Read more in Daily Maverick: R47-million not enough – Vodacom left seething after court orders a bigger payment to Please Call Me inventor

This month the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ordered Vodacom to pay Makate between R29-billion and R55-billion for an idea he said he conceived of. This is significantly higher than what the Constitutional Court previously ordered in the long-running Please Call Me (PCM) saga. The apex court stipulated that Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub had the final say in what Makate should be paid and offered R47-million.

But the SCA judgement reads that Makate “is entitled to be paid 5% – 7.5% of the total revenue of the PCM product from March 2001 to date of judgment …. together with the mora interest thereon”. No lower court should overrule the Constitutional Court, which appears to be the case in this drawn-out dispute.

With a market cap of R200-billion, the lower R29-billion figure represents nearly two years of Vodacom’s annual dividend payouts of around R13-billion to R14-billion, according to the network’s figures. It is a staggering amount for a concept that has no patent behind it.

Origin stories

Kahn came up with the idea, he told me in an email in 2019, when he was dealing with his own frustrations at the time. He said he was getting as many as 40 voicemails a day, mostly from people who left him a message to “call me”.

Kahn is a legendary figure in the mobile industry in South Africa. He worked on “three world firsts,” he told me. “Callme”, as he first named it, was the third of these and he had the idea on 15 November 2000.

The dates are important here. Kahn patented it — through MTN’s lawyers Spoor and Fisher on 22 January 2001 — as a “method and system for sending a message to a recipient”.

The next day the service was launched, about which Kahn jokes that he “injects Callme virus into MTN”.

Two days later, on 25 January, “Callme skyrockets to 1.5m messages,” he added.

It was a runaway success and is now as essential a part of the South African cellular landscape — which allowed someone to send a free SMS (which back then cost R0.25) and for the receiver to then make a call.

“In the first month, Callme reached market saturation,” Kahn told me. “Growing at an astronomical rate of ‘hundreds of thousands of new users a day’, Callme was the fastest service adoption ever recorded in the history of telecoms and Internet, then and to this day.”

Makate would not directly address Kahn’s patents. “Mr Kahn was, according to Vodacom, lined up as a witness during trial in 2013. Vodacom, after CEO at the time, Alan Knott-Craig[’s] testimony decided not to call him,” Makate told me via WhatsApp this month.

“Frankly he could have become a friend of the court if he wanted to. Alan Knott-Craig, the ‘inventor’ according to Vodacom[’s] position in court, said Vodacom was FIRST and that the MTN product was clumsy. I think he is a person you would also like to talk to because this was said in his testimony in court.”

He added: “That is all I can say [to] you.”

When pressed on whether he had filed a patent, Makate refused to directly answer multiple questions. “Surely only Vodacom knows why they ultimately decided not to call Mr Kahn as their witness as promised in court; this Vodacom can answer. Mr Kahn himself can answer why he did not become a friend of the court even if Vodacom decided not to call him,” Makate wrote.

When asked again about a patent, he replied: “I have said what I need to say. I will not enter into a public spat with Mr Kahn. He had an opportunity to come to court in 2013 as a friend of the court and as a witness that Vodacom promised the court.”

Leaked

Kahn thinks the idea was leaked after he briefed MTN’s legal representatives on 16 November 2000. Five days later, on 21 November 2000, Makate sent his “buzzing option” memo to his boss Lazarus Muchenje, according to Vodacom's own records.

Muchenje referred him to then director of product development Philip Geissler, who later concluded a verbal agreement that Makate would 15% cut of any revenue from the concept. Vodacom has since argued that Geissler, then also on the operator’s board, was not empowered to make such a deal.

Kahn and MTN were granted the patent by the Patent Office on 22 January 2001 and MTN sent its first Please Call Me text the next day, on 23 January 2001.

Three weeks later, on 9 February 2001, Vodacom announced its launch of the “Call Me” service, which it described as a “world first” and credited Makate with the idea, according to the operator. It only sent the first message the next day, on 10 February 2001.

That is 13 weeks after Kahn briefed Spoor and Fisher; and three weeks after the patent was granted and MTN sent its first Please Call Me SMS. That clearly does not qualify as a “world first”.

Vodacom said it will appeal the SCA’s 6 February judgment. “Vodacom is surprised and disappointed with the judgment and will bring an application for leave to appeal before the Constitutional Court of South Africa within the prescribed period,” a spokesperson said.

Disputed origins

Vodacom’s key legal mistake appears to have been an unwillingness to acknowledge that the Please Call Me idea wasn't its own. This is unsurprising given the fierceness of competition between the two operators at the time – and the egos involved.

Founding Group CEO Allan Knott-Craig even claimed in his autobiography Second is Nothing that he came up with the idea himself, while watching two security guards without airtime trying to make a call. He later admitted during his 2013 court testimony that he had not invented it.

The operator boasted in its internal magazine in 2001 that the new “call me” product was “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’ has been a big success”.

This hubris – and failure to acknowledge MTN had beaten it to market with Kahn’s patented idea – has come back to haunt Vodacom’s new management.

Vodacom admitted as much to the Sunday Times in 2019 that “It had already been invented and subsequently patented by MTN. In fact, MTN launched its version, called Call Me, the month before Vodacom did”.

But Vodacom never presented this as part of its legal defence and as such was never before any of the courts that ruled on the dispute. Once the Constitutional Court ruled that Makate had invented it, however factually untrue, this is all moot.

Kahn contention that the idea was leaked when he briefed Spoor & Fisher has been mentioned to me by numerous other telecoms executives at both MTN and Vodacom. This fits the timeline, with Makate’s memo coming six days after Kahn’s briefing.

An MTN executive, who asked to remain anonymous, explained to me that the cellular operator, now the biggest in Africa, “chose not to defend it because it looks like two big companies fighting”.

“At the time our lawyers said we had a strong case to make but intellectual property law tends to move on a dime. One technical error, one spelling mistake, and the whole thing gets drawn into questions,” the executive continued. “At the time the view was this is not a product that is not going to make money. It was meant to be a product to help the poor.”

Of Vodacom’s clumsy claim to have developed the idea itself, the executive added: “When you are in a hole, stop digging”. DM

Comments (10)

R S Feb 20, 2024, 04:15 PM

Rory, the simple reality is that Khan was first to patent the idea. Even if Makate had come out his mother's womb knowing he would develop the PCM, Khan was the first to patent it. Makate is opening himself and Vodacom up for legal action should money change hands in this mess.

R S Feb 20, 2024, 04:15 PM

Rory, the simple reality is that Khan was first to patent the idea. Even if Makate had come out his mother's womb knowing he would develop the PCM, Khan was the first to patent it. Makate is opening himself and Vodacom up for legal action should money change hands in this mess.

kuli china Feb 20, 2024, 05:49 PM

Should've closed with a "sponsored by Vodacom". We never hesitate to through the constitution and constitutional court judgements as sacred. But here we are questioning the outcome of a Constitutional court. The issue is not whether he originated the idea or not but that Vodacom Manager, specifically one Phillip Plessey(or something similar) committed that Makate will get a share of profits but then Chief Pretender Officer AKC went and claimed the idea for.himself.

A K Feb 20, 2024, 11:35 PM

Missing the critical patent point by a mile. You cannot invent an "idea" less so one that was technically bankrupt which is all Makate proposed. Ideas are a dime a dozen and Buzz had absolutely nothing whatsoever todo with Callme. The bottomline (again): The Buzz Ring idea he proposed was DOA and the Callme Messaging Service Vodacom implemented was already claimed and launched by Kahn@MTN.

Amadeus Figaro Feb 20, 2024, 11:51 PM

Toby makes the mistake of linking Makate to the leak. It is entirely conceivable and in fact in all probability it is what happened that Makate came up with the Buzz idea on his own. The most important thing is that Buzz is not Please Call Me. The idea of sending a “missed call” and sending a message are two fundamentally different things. Toby in denying Makate his Buzz idea skates on thin racial ground. Unfortunately that is the country we live in. Given the power dynamics, who was most likely to play golf with lawyers? Makate or Alan Knott Craig? That is assuming that the lawyers are the ones who leaked the information which might not be the case. It was not Makate who drew the straight line from Buzz to Please Call Me but it was Knott-Craig. So yes at Vodacom Knott-Craig “invented” PCM not Makate since he was the one who made the decision not to go with Makate’s idea but to steal MTN’s invention. Yes, I said it. Makate’s action of suggesting something to prompt a call from another user was used to steal MTN’s idea and invention. Did Makate’s race play a part in his usefulness as a defence to MTN? Who knows? It’s a strange country we live in. So the long and short Vodacom is in the pickle because of Geissler and Alan Knott Craig. Alan Knott Craig does not get the lampooning and vilification he deserves.

Rory Mishika Feb 21, 2024, 07:17 PM

Amadeus, the Ari Khan ‘leak’ allegation is getting into conspiracy-theory territory now, and is without any credibility. Your hypothesis of AKG playing around on the golf course with some Spoor and Fisher lawyers, where they leaked the MTN ‘patent idea’ to him, would be more Inspector Clouseau than Columbo, as the 5 day window for this to happen would be too short. That’s if you actually believe Ari Khan’s /Toby Shapshak’s preposterous allegation in his article (which it would appear that you do.) Think about how many ‘stars that would have to be aligned’ to fit what you are suggesting. I’d agree with you on the subliminal racial undertones of the article, as I think you’re spot on there. AKG's reputation was irreparably damaged by falsely claiming that the PCM idea was his and not Nkosana Makate's.

A K Feb 22, 2024, 07:34 AM

Makate and Kahn have only one word in common with two very different prefixes and vastly different outcomes... Makate proposed the Buzz Ring which was dead on arrival. AKA Stillborn. Geissler promised to reward him if his idea was technically feasible when it proved to be technically bankrupt and impossible to implement at the time. Kahn@MTN founded Airborn the Incubation Lab operating under the Johnnic/MTN Strategic Investments Division. The Callme Messaging Service was created in Airborn 7 days before Makate proposed his Buzz Ring on the now infamous memo. Callme was patented and publicly launched 7 weeks before Vodacom who abandoned Buzz and landed up implementing "Callme" a carbon MTN copy without even bothering to change the MTN name. Stillborn and Airborn. Pretty much says it all.

Rory Mishika Feb 22, 2024, 12:31 PM

Ari, according to Toby's article, is it really your contention that your idea was 'leaked' when you briefed Spoor & Fisher, which was then plagerised by Vodacom/Nkosana Makate 5 days later, and implemented 6 weeks after MTN launched their Call Me innovation? Can you substantiate that allegation? During the court case in August 2013 Alan Knott-Craig admitted under oath that Makate had invented the PCM innovation/idea. In that same testimony, he admitted that he was not aware of MTN ever threatening to sue Vodacom for allegedly stealing Please Call Me, 'as Geissler had led Makate to believe in 2001'. In that same court case, your/MTN CallMe patent was compared with what Vodacom implemented, based on Makate's brilliant (and very profitable) PCM innovation, and they were found to be technically very different. Can you explain why the court came to that conclusion? Why didn't Vodacom call you as a crucial witness to defend them, and to explain to the court how they had plagerised/stolen your innovation and accredited Makete with it. This must rankle you every time you hear about PCM, being someone that Toby Shapshak describes in his article, as "a legendary figure in the mobile industry in South Africa, who worked on 'three world firsts'. Can you enlighten us why you believe that MTN never sued Vodacom back in 2000, (or anytime after) for stealing their 'patented' innovation, when Vodacom/Vodafone made billions from it over 20 years, around the world? Interesting.

Youone Are Feb 22, 2024, 03:09 PM

After the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision, media reports have scrutinized the fairness of awarding Mr. Makate R29-R55 billion, noting the concept might have been patented by MTN. This seems part of Vodacom's strategy to sway public and judicial opinion. Despite this, Vodacom's obligation to compensate Mr. Makate isn't affected by whether his idea was similar to an existing patent or MTN's involvement. The court's confirmation of Vodacom's agreement to share profits with Mr. Makate stands firm. Analogously, if someone introduces a beneficial foreign-patented product to South African companies and reaches a profit-sharing agreement, they're entitled to compensation, irrespective of the product's ownership. Thus, Vodacom's commitment to Mr. Makate, based on revenue generated, remains in any event unaffected by the concept's origin, as had MTN been the service's developer, Vodacom would've had to negotiate a license, potentially costing them 25% of profits. Mr. Makate's inclusion and a 15% profit share mean Vodacom would still profit substantially from their R200 billion revenue. Vodacom's litigation tactics, now aimed at eliciting public sympathy, cannot overshadow Mr. Makate's right to compensation. While R29 billion is significant, it's modest in the realm of intellectual property, underscoring Mr. Makate's deserved recognition for his resilience and innovation.

A K Feb 23, 2024, 12:23 AM

Flawed logic on so many levels... He did not "introduce" the Callme Messaging system to Vodacom he proposed an entirely different concept called Buzz Ring which was DOA. The promise to "reward" (not gross revenue share let alone profit share) was contingent on his proposal being technically feasible when it turned out to be technically bankrupt. Right then right there right out the Buzz gate any contract to compensate him for his idea was extinguished. Vodacom abandoned his Buzz and what they landed up implementing was already patented and launched by Kahn@MTN seven weeks prior. MTN Callme had sent over 100 million callme text messages over the public networks in broad daylight before Vodacom had sent its first 1. Vodacom came to Callme not because of Makate they came to Callme because they copied their arch rival across the road who had just launched an SMS rocketship that landed on the moon.

Youone Are Feb 23, 2024, 06:39 AM

Dear AK, I presume you are Arie Khan. It seems there might be a misunderstanding regarding the core issue at hand. The debate over whether Makate's proposal was technically identical to that of yours or MTN's is secondary. The primary concern is Makate's contribution towards identifying a novel revenue avenue that reportedly generated R200 billion for Vodacom, a financial gain unlikely without his input. In the business world, it is not uncommon for companies to reward sales personnel with up to 25% commission on sales that would not have been realized without their efforts and keeping in mind that Makate's job description was 'accountant' not 'business developer'. In this context, the court's decision to award Makate a 5-7% commission appears to be more than reasonable. From MTN's perspective, pursuing legal action against Vodacom for equitable licensing terms, potentially up to 25%, would have been a justified course of action, assuming they had maintained their patent rights. However, the abandonment of the patent, along with losses now due to prescription, unfortunately, positioned MTN at a disadvantage. In light of these developments, it might be advisable for the concerned parties to evaluate the advisability of their legal representation in relation to the financial outcomes experienced. Best regards

A K Feb 23, 2024, 06:51 PM

Apples and Oranges. We are not talking about a "finders fee" for some foreign owned asset here. We are talking about the Sovereignty of a Nationally Patented and Protected Technology that awards Inalienable IP Rights to the Inventor (Kahn@MTN) So again ... No.

Lyle Pillay Feb 23, 2024, 05:16 PM

They should just hand over Vodacom to him.

Bamdile Sithole Feb 23, 2024, 09:43 PM

Hello

Rory Mishika Mar 6, 2024, 12:30 PM

Please note that 18 comment postings were removed from this article before the Roggers Mamaila comment below, which amounts to censorship by Daily Maverick personnel. I have contacted them 3 times by e-mail for an explanation, and can proved them with a copy of the removed comments, but they have chosen not to respond. Not good for a publication that professes to 'Defend Truth'.