BULLYING, hacking, cyber stalking and corporate espionage.

It sounds like the beginnings of a crime novel, but it’s actually the claims arising in a long-running and bizarre dispute between Domino’s and a tiny Sydney-based IT company.



Since 2014, Precision Tracking has been engaged in a bitter patent battle with Domino’s, which it accuses of reverse engineering its GPS tracking technology after an aborted partnership.

Precision Tracking develops and licenses a service called Delivery Command, a driver-tracking and store management service used by about 50 businesses, including Crust Pizza and, until recently, Suppertime.

Domino’s Pizza launched its GPS Driver Tracker app last May in partnership with global GPS provider Navman Wireless, with the company hailing the technology as a breakthrough in efficiency and safety.

At the time, Domino’s announced it was going on a hiring spree of 3000 new drivers off the back of the Uber-style app. The new technology has also featured heavily in Domino’s advertising.

Precision Tracking, which employs about eight people, outlines its main allegations on its website. “Have you heard about the Domino’s GPS Driver Tracker?” it says. “Well, we’re the guys who invented it.

“We invented Domino’s GPS driver tracker and installed the system into 50 of their stores. We put our livelihoods on the line and spent three years working hard to get it working right and make it great.

“Now Domino’s are now claiming our hard work and innovations as their own! They breached our nondisclosure agreement and gave confidential information to a foreign company, with whom they made a knock-off of our product.”

Depending on who you ask, the war of words — which started after Precision Tracking was dumped by Domino’s for Navman — is either a David-and-Goliath struggle against a greedy corporation, or mischief-making from a third-party contractor that didn’t make the cut.

Now, in a sweeping series of allegations, Vlad Lasky, director and R&D manager of Precision Tracking and one-time Australian Idol contestant, is variously accusing Domino’s Pizza of not paying bills, breaching the Corporations Act, cyber spying, hacking, unconscionable conduct and even attempted extortion.

The allegations of breaching the Corporations Act relate to Precision’s attempts to obtain Domino’s register to contact shareholders to inform them of the dispute.

The hacking allegation relates to Domino’s actions in the months before it dumped Precision.

“We supplied them with a tablet that had a lock on it. They bypassed the lock and copied our software onto their office computers. Under Queensland law, that could be considered hacking,” Mr Lasky said.

“We have evidence of that, because our software reports details of the computer it’s run from. We know it ran from their own computers as part of their efforts to reverse-engineer our software.”

Mr Lasky says Domino’s owes Precision Tracking $120,000 in unpaid bills for parts and labour costs associated with the aborted rollout. That’s on top of $100,000 the company has spent on legal fees.

Precision Tracking was awarded a patent for its software, which Domino’s is challenging. Domino’s could either win and claim ownership, Precision could win and claim ownership, or the two companies could be awarded joint ownership.

“If we retain ownership of the patent, we’d be able to stop Domino’s using the GPS driver tracking solution in all their stores,” he said. “Even if they’re awarded joint ownership, they would not be able to use it in their franchisees without our consent.

“They would be able to use it in their corporate stores, but not franchisees. The hit to them would be enormous, given the lack of merit of their claims.”

Responding to allegations of unpaid fees for parts and labour, a Domino’s spokeswoman said: “I can confirm that Domino’s paid in a timely way all undisputed invoices provided to the company by Precision Tracking.

“Domino’s has disputed other invoices and in July 2015 asked for further information about them. This further information has not been provided to date.”

She reiterated Domino’s earlier position that “Navman’s GPS solution is in no way based on or uses the Precision Tracking solution or technology”.

“Throughout the initial planning stages, Domino’s conducted trials and workings with a number of GPS suppliers to establish the optimal GPS tracking solution suitable to their business,” she said.

“During this process, Domino’s found the Navman Wireless solution to be significantly superior in all areas to any other potential supplier, including Precision Tracking.

“The appointment of Navman Wireless as the preferred supplier was based on a number of factors, including technical capabilities, usability and price.

“Domino’s confirms Precision Tracking was one of the suppliers being trialled and, as such, conducted a trial of their solution in selected Domino’s stores.

“Navman Wireless is one of the leading providers of GPS solutions and technology in the world and they have developed their own GPS solutions and technology.”

Domino’s did not respond to Precision’s other allegations.

‘FACEBOOK SPYING’

Behind the scenes, however, the legal wrangling has been intense.

In one instance in August, Domino’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to one of its competitors who had been working with Precision — containing a photo only posted to a private Facebook page of Precision’s founder and chief executive officer, Nathan Parrott.

The letter, dated August 31 and sent to Precision and the client, reads: “Our client has recently become aware of what appears to be a Facebook post by Mr Parrott of a photograph taken in a … pizza store with the caption: ‘[Getting] excited about Delivery Command! Stay tuned for a big unveil in a couple of weeks.’

“On the basis of that information, it appears that Precision Tracking intends to license to a third party, for commercial exploitation, the methods and technology that are currently in dispute (as described).”

The letter goes on to threaten legal action against Precision.

Mr Lasky said it was clear Domino’s letter was an attempt to scare the client away from doing business with Precision. “The privacy settings on the photo were set so that it would only be visible to Nathan’s Facebook friends,” he said.

“To our shock, almost two weeks [after he posted the photo], I, Nathan and our fellow director Alex Green received a nasty letter from Domino’s lawyer which enclosed a full-colour reproduction of Nathan’s private Facebook photo.

“We could only conclude that Domino’s had arranged for someone to befriend Nathan and serve as their spy. Alternatively, Domino’s somehow obtained the co-operation of one of Nathan’s existing Facebook friends.”

Domino’s declined to comment on this allegation.

HACKING BACKDOWN

Mr Lasky also alleges Domino’s attempted to “extort” a settlement from Precision in the months following the severing of ties between the companies by accusing Precision of launching a “cyber attack” on its website.

Domino’s alleged Precision had engaged an internet security firm, Qualys, to run “vulnerability scans” and “penetration tests” on the Domino’s website, and threatened to report the company to the police.

“Our client considers these actions to amount to a cyber attack on our client’s systems,” the letter from November 2014 reads.

“These operations were not authorised and caused considerable impairment of our client’s systems. Our client reserves the right to report these actions to the Australian Federal Police as being a contravention of Section 477 of the Cyber Crimes Act (Cth) 2001.”

In what Mr Lasky describes as a “grudging apology”, Domino’s lawyers later wrote to Precision to retract their allegations.

“Following on from our correspondence in relation to the unauthorised interference with our client’s website, our client has conducted further investigations with Qualys,” the letter from February reads.

“Our client has now established that the interference was carried out at the instigation of an entity other than your client.

“Whilst our client believes that it was reasonable, in all the circumstances, to infer that your client was involved, it now accepts that your client was not involved and withdraws its allegation and unreservedly apologists to your client for making the allegation.”

Mr Lasky describes it as an “opportunistic attempt to scare us”. “It seemed to us a real stab in the back,” he said. “They tried to make us out to be criminals with this phony cyber attack accusation.

“A couple of weeks [after the first letter], they tried to offer us a financial settlement under which they wouldn’t have to pay us any of the money they owed us, and we’d no longer be able to sue them for breach of contract and patent infringement.”

He said they feared Domino’s would “use their clout to get the police to storm our office”. “That was something that could kill us.”

Domino’s declined to comment on this allegation.

Precision has just prepared the third round of evidence for the patent dispute, and any decision appears to be some way off.

Asked to comment on the status of dispute, Domino’s spokeswoman said: “As the patent case is ongoing it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment at this stage. In relation to timing, no date has been set at this stage.”

frank.chung@news.com.au