BT pull out of Phorm

[Richard Lamont]

Ian Batten wrote:
> 
> On 06 Jul 09, at 1452, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> 
>> Theo Markettos wrote:
>>> BT say they have "no immediate plans" to use Phorm's service
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8135850.stm
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/bt_phorm/
>>>
>>> Given that many speculated that BT were only sticking at it because they
>>> were contractually obliged, I wonder how they managed to wriggle out
>>> of the
>>> contracts?  Or maybe they think that Phorm is weak enough not to be
>>> able to
>>> sue?
>>
>> More likely such speculations were wrong (no basis for them was ever
>> shown, as far as I've seen), and BT never committed itself to deployment.
> 
> Quite so.  The most that a large company would sign with a startup would
> be ``we'll look at your product.  You won't sell it to other people
> without our agreement, and we won't talk to your competitors without
> your agreement, for a period of X months''.   But even then, it's hard
> to see why they'd bother: BT didn't have exclusivity --- Virgin and CPW
> was being courted as well --- so why would BT commit to anything?  What
> possible power did Phorm have to get BT to do anything beyond signing an
> NDA?

Following BT's decision to dump Phorm, it looks as though Carphone
Warehouse is following suit. From Reuters:

  "Following BT's decision, Charles Dunstone, head of Carphone Warehouse
   (CPW.L), dealt another to blow to Phorm, saying the group was not
   willing to join the service on its own."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL756538220090707

-- 
Richard Lamont                        http://www.lamont.me.uk/
<richard at lamont.me.uk>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41