IP-EPG When Available for Ziggo-users CI+

[Erikrijnders]

Now this forrum is finally official, I would like an answer when the IP-EPG is available for the 2010 models when having Ziggo and CI+. As the 2011 certified models support this feature its no certification-problem.

Please give us an update on this.

[Jantje Beton]

same here, +1

[Eugène]

Joining you. + 1

And i want also the now/next feature. Ziggo send me an advertisement which says they have a now/next feature which is very handy!

[Erikrijnders]

Well?? Philips please react! Is this an official forum or not?

[neppie]

Well?? Philips please react! Is this an official forum or not?

I'm the first to agree on this topic. You might consider a more respectful way of communicating though. I understand you are disappointed by some of the Philips TV features but the Philips people on this forum are only here to help you. A friendly way of communication might even help you getting answers faster

[Erikrijnders]

Well "neppie". I am on this forum for a long time and when Philips doesnot react you loose your patience. I am an consumer that expect Philips (the one I bought my expensive tv from!!) to react on questions from customers. With no reaction at all or no feeling Philips is wanting to do someting about the problems one gets angry.

So the way I see it only the customers are communicating here... Is this what Philips want with this forum or is Philips willing to react and act on all the complaints (like the complaint above and the now/next-problem)??

I donot see big changes or reactions from Phiips they are willing to help and change things the way the customers like it. So why this forum?? Only to implement all solutions to the mentioned complaints in new tv's????

I am around here since august 2010.... So I think I am not wrong in what I am saying here....

[Chrissie18]

I'm stinking of switching back to the cable supplied EPG. At least is shows within the second what program is now/next.
The slowness of the IP-EPG (using the work-aournd of the DVB-T channel installation described somewhere here on this forum) is 'tenenkrommend' anoying...

[Roy]

Same problem here.... +1

What's the use of this forum if Philips doesn't react!

sense en simplicity.... i liked this one more: “Let's make things better”

[Toengel]

Hi,

maybe this is a reason: http://translate.google.com/translat...l&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Toengel@Alex

[Roy]

http://www.digitalekabeltelevisie.nl...zaak_ove.shtml

There is hope....

TRANSLATEDZiggo has won a lawsuit that was filed by the American Rovi. Ziggo HAS won a lawsuit filed by the American That was Rovi. Rovi Ziggo had sued for infringement of a patent on their EPG. Rovi Ziggo was sued for Infringement of a patent on Their EPG. The court stated, however, that patent (patent is a Dutch term for what the rest of the world's patent calls it) "void", and thus was Ziggo acquitted because "an invalid patent no infringement." The court Stated, however, That patent (patent is a Dutch term for what the rest of the world's patent calls it) "void", and Galanthus Ziggo was acquitted because "an invalid patent no infringement."

Rovi owns the European patent EP 1244300 ("Method and apparatus for accessing information about television programs"). Rovi owns the European patent EP 1244300 ("Method and apparatus for accessing information about television programs"). In that patent describes an Electronic Program Guide, and presenting program information when changing channel. That patent Describes in an electronic program guide, program information and presenting When changing channel.

Ziggo argued that the patent is invalid because it would be "addition of matter, patenting a computer program and presentation of data, lack of novelty and lack of inventiveness" The court gave Ziggo are right, and has the patent for the Netherlands destroyed. Ziggo argued thats the patent is invalid Because it would be "addition under or matter, patenting a computer program and presentation of data, Lack of novelty and Lack of inventive ness" The court gift Ziggo are right, and Has The patent for the Netherlands destroyed. Rovi was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by Ziggo, an amount of € 151,033.80. Rovi was ordered to pay the legal costs Incurred by Ziggo, an Amount of € 151,033.80.

[Erikrijnders]

http://www.digitalekabeltelevisie.nl/nieuws/

There is hope....

TRANSLATEDZiggo has won a lawsuit that was filed by the American Rovi. Ziggo HAS won a lawsuit filed by the American That was Rovi. Rovi Ziggo had sued for infringement of a patent on their EPG. Rovi Ziggo was sued for Infringement of a patent on Their EPG. The court stated, however, that patent (patent is a Dutch term for what the rest of the world's patent calls it) "void", and thus was Ziggo acquitted because "an invalid patent no infringement." The court Stated, however, That patent (patent is a Dutch term for what the rest of the world's patent calls it) "void", and Galanthus Ziggo was acquitted because "an invalid patent no infringement."

Rovi owns the European patent EP 1244300 ("Method and apparatus for accessing information about television programs"). Rovi owns the European patent EP 1244300 ("Method and apparatus for accessing information about television programs"). In that patent describes an Electronic Program Guide, and presenting program information when changing channel. That patent Describes in an electronic program guide, program information and presenting When changing channel.

Ziggo argued that the patent is invalid because it would be "addition of matter, patenting a computer program and presentation of data, lack of novelty and lack of inventiveness" The court gave Ziggo are right, and has the patent for the Netherlands destroyed. Ziggo argued thats the patent is invalid Because it would be "addition under or matter, patenting a computer program and presentation of data, Lack of novelty and Lack of inventive ness" The court gift Ziggo are right, and Has The patent for the Netherlands destroyed. Rovi was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by Ziggo, an amount of € 151,033.80. Rovi was ordered to pay the legal costs Incurred by Ziggo, an Amount of € 151,033.80.

Well Philips, can we expexct now/next box when zapping now the patent doesnoet seem to be e reason not to implement this ??? Please react!

[Chrissie18]

[offtopic]
Here again we see the way the 'software patents' realy work oposite as they should be.
Coorporations just want to make money with patents they have harvested, or want to push competition by using absurt generic patents ('a piece of text a user can click on to move to another page').
*sign*
[/offtopic]

But indeed: let's hope Philips can - at least in The Netherlands - use this ruling to enable the now/nect OSD when zapping...