IceTV wins appeal.

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:06

I've heard that the High Court ruled in favour of IceTV earlier today. I'm sure that more information will trickle down in due time.

duke · Post by **duke** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:35

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/04/ice ... -nine.html

tonymy01 · Post by **tonymy01** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:57

I am in awe of ICE for fighting the huge fight here. I was almost in shock when the info of their court win tricked down into all the forums, I really thought that stupidity would reign supreme in the high court, it appears that judges may understand technology and how Nein was trying to kill off innovation after all.... I have seriously breathed a sigh of relief as this likely means that ICE will finally start spending on more advanced features now also.

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:43

Now that the legal cloud has lifted, it would be interesting to see IceTV offer a co-branding effort with electronics manufacturers. Just imagine: You can buy an "IceTV enabled" PVR that will show all the programming that is on Freeview and with features such as ad skip, file transfers, content downloads and remote scheduling. Or you can buy a "Freeview enabled" PVR with none of those features.

I just hope that the IceTV management has enough clout to engage with the various manufacturers and integrate some of the technology into consumer electronics.

download · Post by **download** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 13:06

peteru wrote:I just hope that the IceTV management has enough clout to engage with the various manufacturers and integrate some of the technology into consumer electronics.

Dare I think Microsoft might also be interested?

I can't work out what sort of costs have been awarded?

Kudos ICE

Peter Gillespie

hawk_eyes · Post by **hawk_eyes** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 13:39

Excellent news.

Can't wait to see what new ideas IceTV come up with in the future.

Nem · Post by **Nem** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 13:48

On the IceTV news page.

Excellent news!! I'm sure they'll be at the pub all afternoon!!

raj · Post by **raj** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 15:07

peteru wrote:Now that the legal cloud has lifted, it would be interesting to see IceTV offer a co-branding effort with electronics manufacturers. Just imagine: You can buy an "IceTV enabled" PVR that will show all the programming that is on Freeview and with features such as ad skip, file transfers, content downloads and remote scheduling. Or you can buy a "Freeview enabled" PVR with none of those features.

The problem with this is that as the broadcasters/content providers are also the promoters of Freeview, there could well be a situation where only Freeview branded devices will be capable of decoding the signal.

Of course, that would be challenged legally, but it would take time, and that is the whole aim of the legal game. Drag things out for as long as you can and hope that the other party runs out of money and the case collapses.

What we really need is for the protagonists to get together and attempt to resolve things by keeping the legal teams out of it.

duke · Post by **duke** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 15:50

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_An ... y/R7A6K3X3

Freeview To Cut EPG Deal After IceTV Win

By David Richards | Wednesday | 22/04/2009
The CEO of Freeview Robin Parkes has said that she is not prepared to have a 3 year legal fight over an electronic program guide (EPG) similar to what IceTV has gone through and that she is now in discussions with US company Gemstar in an effort to cut a patent deal that will Australians forced to pay for a Freeview EPG service.

The end result she says will be a royalty fee of around $5.00 which every TV and set to box manufacturer will to pay for each Freeview certified device they import. Currently Gemstar are demanding $10 a box.

The problem for Freeview is that in launching their new service in Australia in May 2009 the service is dependent on a traditional information grid pattern EPG of which the copyright is owned by Gemstar a Company 41% owned by Rupert Murdoch and a Company that was last year acquired by Macrovision.

"I do not want Freeview to get into a legal fight that could go on for years. I have seen the IceTV ruling and if we fight the issue with Gemstar we will end up in a similar 3 year fight. While there are cases overseas that have gone against Gemstar there are no similar rulings in Australia other than the IceTV case which is more about content than a patented grid" said Parkes.

"We are currently talking to Gemstar and we are confident that we will be able to reach an agreement over the royalty that manufacturers will have to pay. We anticipate that the royalty fee could be around $5.00 per device".

Bruiser333 · Post by **Bruiser333** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 16:02

duke wrote:http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_An ... y/R7A6K3X3

Freeview To Cut EPG Deal After IceTV Win

By David Richards | Wednesday | 22/04/2009
The CEO of Freeview Robin Parkes has said that she is not prepared to have a 3 year legal fight over an electronic program guide (EPG) similar to what IceTV has gone through and that she is now in discussions with US company Gemstar in an effort to cut a patent deal that will Australians forced to pay for a Freeview EPG service.

The end result she says will be a royalty fee of around $5.00 which every TV and set to box manufacturer will to pay for each Freeview certified device they import. Currently Gemstar are demanding $10 a box.

The problem for Freeview is that in launching their new service in Australia in May 2009 the service is dependent on a traditional information grid pattern EPG of which the copyright is owned by Gemstar a Company 41% owned by Rupert Murdoch and a Company that was last year acquired by Macrovision.

"I do not want Freeview to get into a legal fight that could go on for years. I have seen the IceTV ruling and if we fight the issue with Gemstar we will end up in a similar 3 year fight. While there are cases overseas that have gone against Gemstar there are no similar rulings in Australia other than the IceTV case which is more about content than a patented grid" said Parkes.

"We are currently talking to Gemstar and we are confident that we will be able to reach an agreement over the royalty that manufacturers will have to pay. We anticipate that the royalty fee could be around $5.00 per device".

Priceless, isn't it? They're not quite so inclined to bully someone closer to their own size!

Good luck with the royalty negotiations...

paulm · Post by **paulm** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 16:47

duke wrote:http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_An ... y/R7A6K3X3

Freeview To Cut EPG Deal After IceTV Win

By David Richards | Wednesday | 22/04/2009
The CEO of Freeview Robin Parkes has said that she is not prepared to have a 3 year legal fight over an electronic program guide (EPG) similar to what IceTV has gone through and that she is now in discussions with US company Gemstar in an effort to cut a patent deal that will Australians forced to pay for a Freeview EPG service.

The end result she says will be a royalty fee of around $5.00 which every TV and set to box manufacturer will to pay for each Freeview certified device they import. Currently Gemstar are demanding $10 a box.

The problem for Freeview is that in launching their new service in Australia in May 2009 the service is dependent on a traditional information grid pattern EPG of which the copyright is owned by Gemstar a Company 41% owned by Rupert Murdoch and a Company that was last year acquired by Macrovision.

"I do not want Freeview to get into a legal fight that could go on for years. I have seen the IceTV ruling and if we fight the issue with Gemstar we will end up in a similar 3 year fight. While there are cases overseas that have gone against Gemstar there are no similar rulings in Australia other than the IceTV case which is more about content than a patented grid" said Parkes.

"We are currently talking to Gemstar and we are confident that we will be able to reach an agreement over the royalty that manufacturers will have to pay. We anticipate that the royalty fee could be around $5.00 per device".

What a confused article. Copyrights and patents are different things.

Stunkrat · Post by **Stunkrat** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 17:10

Judgement.

Haven't finished reading it yet, but my favourite bit so far is Nein's claim that the chronological order of the shows is evidence of the originality of the work. Have they no shame?

Paul55 · Post by **Paul55** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 17:57

Stunkrat wrote:Judgement.

Haven't finished reading it yet, but my favourite bit so far is Nein's claim that the chronological order of the shows is evidence of the originality of the work. Have they no shame?

Absolutely none

raj · Post by **raj** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 20:58

Stunkrat wrote:Judgement.

Haven't finished reading it yet, but my favourite bit so far is Nein's claim that the chronological order of the shows is evidence of the originality of the work. Have they no shame?

Maybe it is? After all, it bears no resemblance to anything else that is real. The chronological order and timing of the shows is unique. It is so unique that the reality of the order and timing of the shows does not even follow it.

tonymy01 · Post by **tonymy01** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 23:15

duke wrote:http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_An ... y/R7A6K3X3

Making news about something completely unrelated to ICE. Isn't it a joke that some company (overseas, Gemstar) decided that displaying EPG in a grid like formation is their patent!! This is patent law gone mad. Can I patent placing a garden mat on my doorstep oriented the opposite way to how it is meant to go (to provide greater surface area for walkers towards the door to brush their feet) and claim royalties for everyone in the world if they were to do this? Ludicrous.
Regards

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:23

Hi Tony,

Welcome to the insanity that is the American patents office.

Regards,
Ian.

Donno · Post by **Donno** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 13:15

Stunkrat wrote:Judgement.

Haven't finished reading it yet, but my favourite bit so far is Nein's claim that the chronological order of the shows is evidence of the originality of the work. Have they no shame?

I respect the originality of their work - which is why I refuse to watch the shows in the order dictated by the networks

j s · Post by **j s** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 14:09

Donno wrote:
Stunkrat wrote:Judgement.

Haven't finished reading it yet, but my favourite bit so far is Nein's claim that the chronological order of the shows is evidence of the originality of the work. Have they no shame?
I respect the originality of their work - which is why I refuse to watch the shows in the order dictated by the networks

Their own staff obviously feel the same way - refusing to broadcast shows at the time scheduled..

Perhaps Nein should have claimed their schedule is a work of fiction - thus denying Ice the "facts" argument.

raj · Post by **raj** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 15:17

Actually I find it hard to believe that the networks have not used the ad skipping features of PVR's to their advantage. I mean, they could easily have their ad breaks vary by one ad each way. This would nullify some of the effect of ad skipping. Then once they mastered that simple task, they could charge a premium for the last advertisement in a break as it would most likely be the one that is seen.

It goes to show their thinking where they run promos for up coming shows as the last ad in a break.

The cheapest placement would be the first ad as it would have the greatest chance of being skipped, and the price would go up as the break went on with the last one being the most expensive as it would be the one most likely to be seen.

Woody3366 · Post by **Woody3366** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 16:49

I agree with press release. Now maybe the clan at IceTV can refocuss on the job at hand. Better content, improved accuracy, better interface and an app for WM6 etc. Without the cost of litigation hanging over their heads they might be able to discount the fee by 70-80%

Seriously good news and one for the folks! Well done to the IceTV team for having the courage to stand their ground and face down the Nien goons. As always no-one really wins except for the lawyers who are all down at the BMW dealerships....

np · Post by np » Thu Apr 23, 2009 17:09

Apologies if this has been covered, but does this mean that Ice will have more accurate and complete Channel Nein EPG ? If so, when do you think this will start ?

Gully · Post by **Gully** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 17:22

np wrote:Apologies if this has been covered, but does this mean that Ice will have more accurate and complete Channel Nein EPG ? If so, when do you think this will start ?

Yes it should do but no idea when as they seem to be taking time to fully understand the decision and any implications - fair enough too.

Gully · Post by **Gully** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 17:23

raj wrote:Actually I find it hard to believe that the networks have not used the ad skipping features of PVR's to their advantage. I mean, they could easily have their ad breaks vary by one ad each way. This would nullify some of the effect of ad skipping.

Channel 10 was doing this for a while with short ad breaks.

download · Post by **download** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 18:55

As always no-one really wins except for the lawyers who are all down at the BMW dealerships....

Actually the lawyers Nine hired to prove breech of copyright are the same ones that ICE originally hired to ensure they weren't breaking any laws

The verdict does seem to read that ICETVs original approach is 100% valid. Its almost too wide reaching as it also seems to imply that the time and title information might even be legally copied 100% from the TV Guide.

Channel 10 was doing this for a while with short ad breaks.

Loved the 'Don't go away we'll be back soon' campaign. They started off with a 60 second break. After a month or so they kept posting the same preamble but just went with the standard 4 minute line up. I guess 'soon' is in the eye of the beholder

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Woody3366 · Post by **Woody3366** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 18:58

...and people wonder why lawyers get a bad rap!

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 19:44

Hi Raj,

raj wrote:Actually I find it hard to believe that the networks have not used the ad skipping features of PVR's to their advantage. I mean, they could easily have their ad breaks vary by one ad each way. This would nullify some of the effect of ad skipping. Then once they mastered that simple task, they could charge a premium for the last advertisement in a break as it would most likely be the one that is seen.

It goes to show their thinking where they run promos for up coming shows as the last ad in a break.

The cheapest placement would be the first ad as it would have the greatest chance of being skipped, and the price would go up as the break went on with the last one being the most expensive as it would be the one most likely to be seen.

I disagree, I think the first add could be the most expensive as you are likely to see at least the beginning of it while you reach for the remote control. If the first ad was amusing or interesting, particularly at the start, then you also stand a chance that the ad will be watched. Making ads fun and interesting seems to be a lost art. If the ads were better then I suggest that more of them would be watched.

Regards,
Ian.

raj · Post by **raj** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 19:56

IanSav wrote:Hi Raj,
I disagree, I think the first add could be the most expensive as you are likely to see at least the beginning of it while you reach for the remote control. If the first ad was amusing or interesting, particularly at the start, then you also stand a chance that the ad will be watched. Making ads fun and interesting seems to be a lost art. If the ads were better then I suggest that more of them would be watched.

Regards,
Ian.

I was just going by my own usage pattern (and others I know). As soon as I see the ad break coming up I press the up arrow (which I have set to 2 minutes). I then press the right arrow (30 sec) until I start seeing the program again. If I do, it is left arrow (-10 sec) until I start seeing the ads again at which point I know it is the last ad in the break.

This is why I say the last one in the break is more likely to be seen. I rarely (if ever) see the first ad in the break.

But whichever way, I would have thought that the commercial TV stations would have worked out ways to work with ad skipping rather than use a brute force mechanism where the function is disabled.

tonymy01 · Post by **tonymy01** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 20:14

IanSav wrote:I disagree, I think the first add could be the most expensive as you are likely to see at least the beginning of it while you reach for the remote control..

No way, not for me. As soon as the station logo disappears, I know it is about to go to a break and wack that skip. I then spot bits of adverts as I progress at 20secs at a time after doing a large skip. The later in the advert break, the more chance I have of seeing something as I hone in on the start of the TV show.
Regards

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 23:40

Hi,

I spend so much time trying to ignore the station watermarks that I would hate to think that I have to start watching them to detect pending ad breaks.

Regards,
Ian.

Paul55 · Post by **Paul55** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 08:00

Woody3366 wrote:...and people wonder why lawyers get a bad rap!

I've heard that some scientists are replacing lab rats with unemployed lawyers - apparently, there are some things that rats won't do

tonymy01 · Post by **tonymy01** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 08:09

I don't stare at them. It is pretty obvious normally, the music starts reaching a crescendo, the scene appears to be coming to an end/cliff hanger/obvious cut point, and suddenly the watermark disappears, so wack goes the +2mins the moment it finishes. I would be lucky to get a millisecond of advert (which is normally a promo on Ten anyway) on the "out" but get plenty of advert back on the in as you will never manage to skip to the nearest millisecond back into your show.

Donno · Post by **Donno** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 13:36

IanSav wrote:Hi,

I spend so much time trying to ignore the station watermarks that I would hate to think that I have to start watching them to detect pending ad breaks.

Regards,
Ian.

Agreed, but I find it annoying that when I do want to see the watermark (after skipping forward 3 minutes, to see if I've landed in or out of the ads), it is obscured by the overly-large progress bar.

IceTV wins appeal.

IceTV wins appeal.

About the Forum

Join us