This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Business Talk


found that when a network fault occurred, suppliers who saw themselves as hardware manufacturers and vendors would often avoid engaging in the process of solving the problem and he often found himself stuck in the middle of a situation where concern for customer service appeared to be a low priority. This became more of an issue with the rise of the internet and the strategic importance of IP networks to organisations. In an effort to ensure their businesses kept running, customers were buying support contracts for their switches, routers and other kit from different vendors, who would typically refuse to talk to each other when the network went down. Meanwhile the customer’s business was suffering.


Multiven’s disruptive threat Despite the fact that no individual vendor wanted to take responsibility for the whole network, irrespective of the underlying software, hardware or services, support and maintenance are a valuable revenue stream for network equipment manufacturers. So the emergence of Multiven has posed a disruptive threat to this business and to the hardware companies, which are now also under increasing threat from lower-cost brands from the Far East, fulfilling the endless demand for growth and margin from Wall Street.


When Alfred-Adekeye founded Multiven in 2005, he might naturally have expected some aggressive competition from those companies whose business model was at risk. What he probably did not expect was a protracted legal dispute that has seen him jailed under false pretences and his character called into question. This is a situation familiar to Entrepreneur Country Forum’s keynote speaker Mike Lynch subsequent to his sale of Autonomy to HP, except for the jail bit, that is.


Those of you that can remember into the last century may remember that in the late ‘90s the EU eventually ruled against a situation where motor manufacturers were accused of blocking anyone but their own channels from servicing their car brands, by amongst other things, restricting both the supply of authorised spare parts to independent garages and the sale of their brands only through branded dealerships. Ten years later in December 2008, history repeated itself as Alfred-Adekeye’s Multiven launched an anti-trust lawsuit against Cisco in the US, arguing that it was blocking independent service organisations from supporting and maintaining its equipment which today accounts for the majority of the Internet’s infrastructure.


David versus Goliath What followed was two years of an intense David versus Goliath battle between a small disruptive business and the large established company that refused to embrace change. The legal drama included Alfred-Adekeye being refused a visa to enter the US to fight the case, with the trial being moved to Vancouver. There, he was briefly arrested and jailed on alleged fraud charges. A Canadian Supreme Court judge subsequently released


Alfred-Adekeye, claiming that, “it would appear that Cisco representatives 48 entrepreneurcountry


were very much complicit with US Justice Authorities to utilise the criminal process to put as much pressure on him as possible.”


Eventually Cisco settled the Multiven vs. Cisco case on July 19, 2010 and made software bug fixes freely available to Multiven customers with valid licenses, dropping its alleged fraud charges.


Alfred-Adekeye likens the legal wranglings to the patent disputes that are currently wracking the mobile device industry, buying time whilst industry super tankers figure out how to change course. “Unfortunately, change is difficult for a lot of companies, especially those that have enjoyed a monopoly in an industry with valuations to match,” he says. “Think Virgin Atlantic versus British Airways. Richard Branson was put through hell with BA’s ‘dirty tricks’ campaign” because he dared to threaten BA’s transatlantic monopoly with a service that customers preferred. But by 2011, the Virgin Group generated $21 billion in revenue and employed 50,000.”


Like Virgin, Multiven has gone on to prosper. Now the Zurich-headquartered, company is growing at a triple digit Y-o-Y rate, with customers in all vertical markets and maintained networks on every continent.


One thing is for sure, Alfred-Adekeye’s case is a cautionary tale to entrepreneurs who are thinking of succeeding at disrupting multi-billion pound monopolised markets. They should prepare for long battles against Porter’s acolytes and like Branson, Lynch and Alfred-Adekeye, never waiver in their conviction, sacrifice and determination to change the world, whatever is thrown at them.


Peter Alfred-Adekeye


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58