Radio: MONKEYmedia's Eric Gould Bear Discusses the Company's Patent Claims
Eric Gould Bear is president and CEO of MONKEYmedia, a company which holds a portfolio of patents that it says include "claims directed towards telescopic video-on-demand (VOD) and other enhanced viewing experiences," and that it claims "are essential to the practice of various industry-governed standards such as DVD-Video, Blu-ray and tru2way (e.g. Enhanced TV & SCTE-130)." The company has launched a "SeamlessTV Partner Program" for licensing those patents, and, back in 2006, announced that it had succeeded in convincing none other than Microsoft to enter into a patent-licensing agreement with it (note: for more on the company and its claims, see the article published on itvt.com, August 25th).
In this recorded episode of [itvt]'s talk radio show, "The TV of Tomorrow Show with Tracy Swedlow," Bear discusses the company's claims and its licensing program, describes the origins of its patents, outlines its goals, and more.
FULL TRANSCRIPTION OF RADIO SHOW
TRACY: Hi, this is Tracy Swedlow, editor-in-chief and founder of Interactive TV Today, also called [itvt]. We’re at http://www.itvt.com and we also have http://www.thetvoftomorrowshow.com. We follow the multi-platform, interactive television industry around the world. Specifically, we report on trends, technologies, financials, content innovations and applications, advertising, marketing advancements, leading executives, events and so much more. We study the Internet, cable, satellite, Telco, mobile and consumer electronics industries, large and small. I founded the company in 1998, so we’ve been in business about eleven years plus. The show is called The TV of Tomorrow Show Live. You can read our daily news, search our archives, access screenshots, blog, upload media, even upload jobs on our new site, itvt.com. There you’ll hear about our latest interviews or about our annual TV of Tomorrow Show Conference coming up March 3rd through the 5th in San Francisco.
Part of our mandate is also to offer interesting and informative interviews with high-level executives, creatives and technologists who work at companies that are changing the medium of television and aggressively influencing the marketplace.
In this episode of our talk show we speak to the CEO of a company that may shake things up a bit. Eric J Gould Bear, CEO of MONKEYmedia is here with us to discuss their VOD patents and the controversy about who owns what. An Austin based company that describes itself as “a privately held user-interface design studio turned intellectual property licensing boutique,” MONKEYmedia announced in August the launch of its Seamless TV partner program for the licensing of its portfolio of seamless expansion and seamless contraction patents. The company says that “the patents include claims directed toward telescopic video- on-demand and other enhanced viewing experiences and are essential to the practice of various industry-governed standards, such as DVD video, Blu-ray and tru2way, (e.g. Enhanced TV & SCTE-130)."
So, this is definitely a controversial claim and they might be in the right.
Let's find out a little bit about Eric. MONKEYmedia was founded in 1994 by Eric, and the company’s been “a leading force in the design of award winning computer interfaces since 1984.” He’s published numerous articles on the subject and is a first named inventor on over 80 software and hardware interactions patents and patent applications. The company has set up a Web site for its Seamless TV Partner Program at seamless.tv, and a list of the patents that the company’s seeking to license through the program is available at seamless.tv/patents/index.html. Welcome to the show, Eric.
ERIC: Hey, thanks for having me.
TRACY: [When you] made this announcement, it kind of seems like out of the blue. We hadn’t really heard much of you before that. So, I’m very curious, why this announcement now? Maybe before that you might want to talk about the history of MONKEYmedia.
ERIC: Yeah, you bet. So, MONKEYmedia is a 15 year old company and, in fact, these inventions date back to conception even before that. The first patents in the Seamless TV family are the contraction ones, which date back to 1991. Those were about being able to personalize media by giving people ways of skipping over the stuff that didn’t matter to them so everyone could see what was relevant just to them. At that time we called it a relativity controller and were playing with this concept of personalized media. The seamless expansion concept was something that we came up with in 1994 while we were experimenting with what might be kind of the future of new forms of media, before DVD existed, and what interactive TV could be like in the future even though we didn’t even have digital video being transmitted remotely at that time. So, we’ve been doing this a long time and I think your question of “why now?” well, there’s a fair amount of research that goes into getting the techniques right. The patent application process is fairly long, the first seamless contraction patent didn’t actually issue until 2002.
We’re designers. You know, I’m a designer at heart and the way in which I prioritize my investment of time is because I care about end users. So, the things that I’ve been making for the last 25 years are really about having an impact on people in the real world. If they don’t have an impact and make people’s lives better or make media more engaging or more useable, then it’s really a waste of time, and that’s what I’m about as a person. So, there’s a kind of a commonality between that approach to designing products to how we wanted to go about creating a licensing program. It’s not uncommon that patent holders will take a litigious approach to protecting their IP for creating revenue streams. What’s more interesting to us is creating relationships and as any partnership requires symbiosis, on the one hand here we’ve got inventor and designer, and on the other hand we’ve got developers, distributers and users and both of those parties need to be ready and willing at the right time. So, if we had looked at this two years ago it would have been premature to create such a partnership program because the industry wasn’t ready. Now, the industry is ready and it makes sense to have this kind of a program in place.
TRACY: You know, you were interface designers, correct, in the early 90’s or was this really done by you or did you have a group of people that you’ve been working with for all of these years? I mean you have quite a lot of people it seems on your staff on your Web site listed. It seems like this kind of came out of the blue or you were designing CDs and you thought, “Well, this is going to eventually translate to interactive television.” Where did these ideas come from, to develop these?
ERIC: We had a client that had come to us with the challenge of looking at what would be kind of novel interactions and novel technologies to develop for the future of interactive video. That was the question that was posed and…
TRACY: Can you say who that client was?
ERIC: Yeah, yeah, I sure can. That was Interval Research.
TRACY: That’s the lab that was funded by Paul Allen down here in the South Bay.
ERIC: That’s right.
TRACY: Which was a very exciting place to be, certainly in the 90’s, when the new media vanguard was hanging out or around Interval Research. So, that’s an interesting phenomenon. So, they asked you to…Were you working with Brenda Laurel at the time, by any chance?
ERIC: No, I was working with Rachel Strickland.
TRACY: Rachel Strickland, that’s a name from the past. What happened to that project? Did you just sort of fulfill their expectations? Why didn’t they claim the work, the patents that you developed?
ERIC: It’s a great question and you know, what happened is, in the 90’s when we came up these, there were a lot of people excited about it in our camp but there was a lot of questions that this isn’t actually a direction that the industry could go. As you know, Interval itself folded after just a few years. We worked closely with them for that entire duration perfecting these techniques. MONKEYmedia retained the rights to these techniques and that’s where a certain chunk of this IP came from, but a lot of people, as we looked at our decisions from a business standpoint, people said, “This will never come to pass,” in large part because people said there would never be hard drives on TVs. So, it was just the combination that didn’t make sense to people. So, we put ourselves out on a limb and basically spent all of our profits investing in protecting what we believed in and what we hoped would become a reality because it would make the world something really special for people. Today, we look back and people are just amazed that these patents can exist because it’s so ubiquitous. It’s just kind of ironic, isn’t it? It’s not really that surprising because people have trouble remembering a time before TiVo and remembering a time before DVD existed and seamless branching and telescoping advertising. It feels very natural today and that’s something about human beings, once we get accustomed to new technologies it’s hard to remember life before it. When the answering machine came out it was rude to have someone’s phone answered by an answering machine. Like, how rude of them to not answer the phone and have a machine answer it, when it first came out. Today, if you don’t have an answering machine and it rings and rings that’s rude. So, our expectations as social beings changed dramatically with the nature of the technology that we interface with.
TRACY: Well, you know I was around in the early 90’s, hanging out with the virtual reality crowd, and interactive TV was certainly on people’s minds. They were more excited about cyberspace and virtual identities and floating through 3D experiences, but interactive TV was certainly on people’s radar and it was on mine and that’s when I started following it. So, I’m with you. I mentioned Brenda Laurel. She, of course, wrote a very important book called Computers as Theater and she was very interested in interactive television and virtual reality and things like that. Anyway, I digress. She was working at Interval. So, what did you do? You developed these patents, but you must have just continued working on interface design and then eventually you saw the rise of interactive TV and, of course, Microsoft investing hundreds of millions of dollars in WebTV eventually. Steve Pearlman, who was one of the founders of WebTV, TV did arrive on the scene by the mid 90’s and so I’m curious why? You said that your patents were completed by 2002 but now we’re in 2009. I guess I ask the question again, “Why now?” Is it because the industry is investing many more millions of dollars into new ventures…What’s the right word I’m looking for? You know...focused the scene towards actual implementation. Why in 2009?
ERIC: Well, it’s still nascent the number of hard drives in people’s set top boxes that enable this. TiVo got a good head start and their early telescopic advertising, they would download the expansion over the phone line in the middle of the night so it would cache to a hard drive and be ready for the next day.
TRACY: TiVo and ReplayTV were around early 2000.
ERIC: That’s right, but the advertising, the telescopic advertising, wasn’t taking place, and telescopic content. We really have only seen that, we’ve seen it on DVDs to a certain extent and now on Blu-ray. It’s really taking off, so that no matter where you are in the movie often times you can get to extra features. Go watch a behind the scenes and when it’s done automatically come right back to the movie where you left off. It’s only recent that those things have become ubiquitous and, as designers and researchers, we wanted to make sure that we understood all of the variables of how things work, and the variables of how to price things fairly. There is a lot of variability in how people were pricing things early on. Some things too high, some things too low. It’s still quite all over the map and the pricing that we have set and we have made public is something that we feel confident is fair across the board.
TRACY: Could you describe, in short, how you define telescoping or the patents that are specifically on the books here?
ERIC: Well, telescoping is, if you can picture an actual telescope, and imagine the telescope that is not extended all the way, but just extended part of the way. Okay? Then you could walk your fingers, like your taking a walk through the Yellow Pages with your fingers from one end to the other end, and you get to the middle and there’s something else that interests you. So, you pull the telescope apart and you’ve created a new bridge right in the middle and then you can walk/traverse that piece and when you get to the end of that piece, you can then continue walking on where you would have been when you left off at that previous place. So, the word telescoping comes straight from the telescope. So, you’ve got telescoping with an expansion. So, that’s where you pull it and it gets bigger and that’s what we call seamless expansion. Then, there’s seamless contraction which is, now take that entire telescope and collapse it down to its smallest and say, “You know, all that matters to this particular person is being able to take this short bridge. There’s more stuff in there, but it’s not salient to them and maybe not salient to them in this point in time,” so it’s collapsed in that way and different people can collapse that telescope to different compartments and contract what’s not relevant to them. So, that’s telescoping in a nut shell. They can expand and you can contract.
TRACY: I’ve seen different companies develop ideas of what is called telescoping TV. Spot On was developed by ACTV, which was eventually purchased by, I think, Wink/Open TV, and there have been some other award-winning [implementations] where people are navigating in, expanding out. It will be interesting to see who feels compelled to buy your patent.
Now, you have mentioned in your materials that Microsoft has licensed your technology. That’s pretty impressive, right off the bat. Can you tell me a little bit about how Microsoft discovered the existence of these patents? Did they come to you? Did you contact them? What’s your strategy for reaching out to companies? I know you’re going to be appearing at Digital Hollywood this month and that’s good. too, but how are you reaching out to companies now? If you could explain the Microsoft connection that would be great.
ERIC: I thought we were going to get off the hook on that one. What I’ll say is that the press release says all that I can say about it at this time, with regard to them. There are multiple licenses to these Seamless TV patents currently.
TRACY: Other than Microsoft, there are other companies who are already licensing that you can’t mention?
ERIC: That’s correct.
TRACY: Are they well known brands? Are they Fortune 500 companies?
TRACY: When did this licensing begin? As soon as you sent out the press release or has this been happening for the last few years?
ERIC: You know, I’m not in a position to make statements about our partners at this time, but I’ll answer your other question, which is we went public with the program on August 24th and we launched a press release to get broad coverage and we’ve been in communication with all the major players. So, there’s several categories of companies that are impacted by these patents.
TRACY: And they are?
ERIC: So, on the one hand you’ve got disc manufacturers and distributers. So, people who make DVDs and Blu-ray discs that actually have special features that include seamless expansion or seamless contraction on them. So, not every disc does it, but many discs, special editions and such, do include that. One of the earliest great examples is The Matrix. A lot of people are familiar with The Matrix and there was a mode you could put it into where a little white rabbit would show in the corner of the screen just for a few seconds, and if you don’t do anything the white rabbit goes away and the movie continues. If you would hit select on your remote control while the white rabbit is up, it will pause the movie exactly where it is. It will go off and play a behind the scenes vignette showing how they shot that footage and some commentary. When that’s done it comes back exactly where it was, or in the neighborhood of where it was and continues the film linearly. Many people refer to what we call seamless expansion as the white rabbit technique because The Matrix was one of the early examples of how it was implemented in commercial DVDs. So, the DVDs and Blu-ray discs that do it require a license. Then, basically all DVD players and Blu-ray players, whether their hardware players or software players that run on a PC, because those players have to abide by the DVD video specification and/or the BDVideo specification. By definition, because they have to adhere to specification, they make possible the playing of discs that do it and as a result those players become infringers. So, all major consumer electronics companies and software companies making software that do these things. So, that’s two categories.
The third category is set top boxes and the MSOs. So, the set top boxes, that extra performance, it’s not all set top boxes, but any set top box that’s tru2way capable, EBIF, Canoe [...] using TiVo showcases, those are all capable and therefore they require a license. So, those are the boxes. Then, you’ve got the MSOs themselves, whether it’s the cable provider, the satellite provider, or a telco that’s actually providing the content. Whether that content is advertising content that expands, or it’s just simply interactive content. So, we’ve got conversations going with all of those players there.
Then, the last category is in the Internet video space, like the You Tubes and the AOL video, that have in-video advertising. So, those are kind of the high-level categories of people who require a license and it’s fairly unique for a patent to have an impact across so many different types of spaces. Usually patents are more aligned with one or another. We happen to have lucked out here.
TRACY: I think you meant to also mention what you call smart TVs, or they call them connected TVs these days, PC video players, mobile devices. I’m assuming that includes all smart phones, like the iPhone?
ERIC: You know, you’re absolutely right and it’s even hard for me to keep track of all the ways in which this impacts the world. So, yeah, when I said set top boxes, any type of device, like a smart TV, that has set top box functionality built into it certainly would apply and mobile devices that enable this as well. In that case, they can kind of serve as a very small hand-held interactive TV display device.
TRACY: I mean, this could also impact the interactive video wall industry. Because there’s certainly all kinds of interactive expanding and de-expanding graphics that are going on there and that’s a huge new emerging industry. Anyway, that’s definitely quite a lot of market segments that you’re hitting. Do you even think you’re going to continue to be in the business of interface design? If you’re able to secure patent licenses with all of the companies who are impacted here you won’t never need to work again.
ERIC: Well, I’ll tell you, no matter what happens with this I never stop being a designer. It’s how I think. I can’t touch a door handle without feeling it and knowing whether it feels right. I can’t pick up a device without noticing the materials and the locations of the buttons and how to optimize it. I mean, my brain is always going about how to make things better for people and I pick things up and I think, “Wow, how do I get to the people who made this so that we can improve it?” It’s just how I operate and how I’ve always operated. It’s how I was as a kid, taking things apart, putting things together and trying to make things work better. That’s just the kind of meta thinking that’s in the heads of interface designers who are strong and left-brained and right-brained at the same time. That kind of art and science coming together. There’s a piece of clarity there, I think, which MONKEYmedia closed down its design services division in 2001. So, in itself, was not operating as a design business since the bubble burst. So, I’ve been consulting on user experience strategy in recent years, working at a corporate level, but the focus here is on, it’s not just how do we get people to license this, but how do we get people to do this really well? We can look across and see people doing it. There’s plenty of examples where it’s really botched up. We’ve looked a lot of Blu-ray discs and we’ve looked at a lot of TV systems and a lot of DVDs and I’ll tell ya, on Blu-Ray, because that’s what’s hot on my mind right now because we’ve been through hundreds of discs, the way in which they code it…So, you might go to an expansion and come back where you left off and you’re playing the video and you realize you want it to go back and you start rewinding and then it won’t rewind back behind the expansion. Just really silly things that, because engineers, when they implemented it without thinking about how the end users are impacted – I would love to help make sure that, not only is it ubiquitous, but it’s done really well for people.
TRACY: Now, are you generating real income right now? You said you have a lot ofpartners. Are you in the black?
ERIC: We are.
TRACY: Okay, because you said you can’t really talk about the Microsoft relationship, but can you talk about categories of companies who have licensed these patents so far? You mentioned MSOs or you mentioned set top box developers, although you didn’t actually confirm that. Are those kinds of companies licensing today?
ERIC: Tracy, when we’re ready to make a public statement about this, you’ll be one of the first people to know.
TRACY: Okay, well I need to ask these questions. Now, what is your actual partnering approach? You mentioned that to me before, the call. Can you talk about how much these patents, how much you’re charging or what’s your licensing arrangement? What’s your business model?
ERIC: So, it’s a pretty straight forward system and this information that’s totally public, it’s on the seamless.tv website and anyone can get there and what I’m going to do is, because I don’t have this stuff memorized in my head, I’m just going to look it up while we’re speaking and give you an overview of that. So, anyone who goes to the site, hits the link to partner program, and then hits table of fees, can get this information. So, I think before diving into any of the details, the question is, “Why partner? Why not just go sue people?” You know, that’s just not who we are. We are interested in broad uptake and we’re interested in being fair and we’re interested in having positive relationships with people. The legal back and forth is not going to be good for anybody. The reality is that if we get into conflict with anybody, we’re going to win and they’re going to end up paying even more in legal fees and in damages than we’re charging up front. So, we’re trying to make it something which is a more fun process for everybody, something that includes a healthy conscientiousness to what kind of an industry we want to be fostering. What kind of a world do we want to be supporting? Because how we act in the world is what we model for other people and how they act and that’s kind of our take on social responsibility, with regard to the ownership of patents.
TRACY: Well, looking at you…
ERIC: And this…
TRACY: Sorry, go ahead.
ERIC: Well, you know I think there’s an opportunity to really be innovative in business methods here and not just in the inventions themselves.
TRACY: Looking at your chart of fees for Program Entry... it starts from, it seems like, $250,000 for DVD and Blu-ray disc, to video and Blu-ray players to $1.5 million. Are you actually securing these kinds of fees right now?
ERIC: You know I’m not going to answer that, but what I’m going to say is these prices are incredibly fair and they’re incredibly easy, given the scale of what’s going on in the industry. A popular DVD or Blu-ray will sell 10 to 13, sometimes more, million copies. You can do the math yourself to look at, “What does that mean in terms of charging?” A penny and a half per disc. We’ve looked at comparable licensing rates across the space, what the different patent pools charge, what the individual collections of patents charge and these rates are incredibly reasonable. Any studio that has multiple hits, multiple blockbuster videos per year, a program entry of $250,000 is not really that noteworthy. With regard to the players, we know that in the United States there are, on average, about 20 million DVD players sold a year. That’s just the stand alone DVD players. That doesn’t include DVD players built into game machines. It doesn’t include the PS3s, which is the most popular Blu-ray player on the planet right now. It doesn’t include all the laptop computers that have DVD players and Blu-ray players in it. It doesn’t include all the automobiles that have DVD players sitting in the roof of those cars. That’s just, that number, so you take and you say, “You know what? There’s less than ten major consumer electronics manufacturers that share the lion’s share of those sales. We’re not talking about a big dent in the program entry fee there.
TRACY: According to your materials, for the Seamless Expansion intellectual property, you own four patents and you’ve got three more applications pending. Is that correct?
ERIC: Yeah, Seamless Expansion, there are four. Right.
TRACY: And within the Seamless CVontraction family, you have five patents and five applications pending. Do you know, within these applications, are there any new concepts or interface designs that you haven’t announced yet? I mean, I need to probably read them, myself, but actually if you look in this there’s all kinds of things about audio/visual presentation, all kinds of things to do with audio really. Can you describe what some of those abstracts are?
ERIC: Well, audio/visual, is there one in particular that you’re looking at there? When we say audio or video presentation, and when we talk about content generally, these techniques apply not just to video, but certainly they do apply to audio and it’s not a far stretch to think about the kind of experiences that we have that we’re really just starting to have in video, being experiences that we can have with audio and other media. Wouldn’t it be great if you could be in the car and rewind something someone said on the radio and re-catch that again? Wouldn’t it be great if, while you’re driving in the car, an ad comes on and it’s actually something that interests you and you do an expansion and play the long form ad, then pick up where you left off and not miss anything from NPR? The concepts have broad applicability and I think we’re only starting to scratch the surface of what’s possible. I’ll risk using the term multimedia. We haven’t used that term in 15 years, but it really feels like it may be time to bring that back.
TRACY: You’re someone who lived through the 90’s, working through the 90’s and got through, I guess, somewhat unscathed. Right?
ERIC: Well, I think a whole lot better than unscathed.
TRACY: I’m being facetious, I mean, it certainly was a term that was bandied out many times. I actually worked for a publication called Multimedia World, which has gone away, which was an IDG publication, anyway, long story. People just often refer to things as multiplatform these days. Multimedia is kind of…
ERIC: Yeah, that’s right. So, it can apply in many different ways and you know the seamless contraction family had it’s roots, not just in video, but in fact, and what we see on computers with auto-summarization, for example, where it’s just bodies of text. It can take the non salient stuff and shrink it up so you just see the relevant pieces. These are applications outside of the space of video. They’re not really part of the seamless TV partner program, but there are places in which these patents have a play.
TRACY: Did these patents describe where or how the graphics or the applications arrive on the screen, that are then expanded or contracted, is that part of the description of these patents, or is that unrelated?
ERIC: It’s not unrelated, but it’s not part of what’s planned. In fact, what’s cool about user experience patents is that they cover the technologies and the methods insofar as they have an impact on people’s experience and how it’s actually coded behind the scenes or what particular technologies are used behind the scenes: it’s really a moot point. It can be a black box, as far as matters to these patents.
TRACY: I mean, doesn’t this really directly affect the interface revolution that we’ve seen on the iPhone. I mean, you said yes earlier, but that is certainly an important revolution in the way people manipulate screens or images or photos and now we’re seeing the emergence of new technologies that deal with augmented reality, where graphics are being projected in real space that you see on the screen and you’re able to control those with your fingers. I’m assuming that these patents may have been covered in those ideas.
ERIC: Well, you know, I’m not an attorney, okay? It’s really important to get that clear to everybody who’s listening. I’m not an attorney and if anybody has concerns about what these cover and don’t cover, they should actually have their own legal counsel review the claim. What we’re focused on today, with the seamless TV partner program, is audio/visual streams. In other words, video that plays, the main piece of video and it has options for contracting that and expanding it. Those expansions can be other video, it can be text, it can be interactive, it can be a questionnaire, it can be request for materials, but what we’re focused on today is the main stream being video.
TRACY: Well, you certainly have a big road ahead of you. This is going to be an exciting opportunity. If some companies resist wanting to partner with you, are you going to begin to sue, or do you have a particular deadline by which you think you might go after people, or do you think you’re just going to…What’s your strategy? What’s your long-term strategy for handling this?
ERIC: Well, you know, I’m an inventor and what’s most important to me is that we get the impact on end users. So, we’re talking to people and there are different levels of acceptance and there’s going to be a domino effect. Of course, we don’t have a crystal ball and we can’t tell what’s going to happen in the future, and anybody who would create a program like this without having a sawed-off shotgun in their back pocket ready to pull the trigger would be a fool. We have great attorneys. We’ve got super smart, creative, excited people who are ready to take this to the mat. We’re taking a friendly, fair approach and expect that that’s going to continue working for us.
TRACY: Okay, well that sounds like a strategy, in general, but do you have a general timeline? Do you think you’ll wait a year before you start going after people or you don’t have a timeline in mind at all?
ERIC: Our timeline is to keep our nose to the grindstone and keep having conversations with people and watch what happens.
TRACY: Okay, well sounds like a plan. I wish you success and we’ll certainly be covering further developments. Please contact us when you have some new announcements.
ERIC: Excellent. We will. Thank you so much, Tracy.
TRACY: Thank you, Eric. We’d love to have you come and speak or talk about what you’ve developed at our TV of Tomorrow Show, but we can discuss that another time.
ERIC: That sounds great.
TRACY: You can certainly reach and read more about MONKEYmedia at monkeymedia.com.
ERIC: The places to go are monkey.com and seamless.tv.
TRACY: Sorry, I forgot you do own monkey.com. I was impressed that you owned that URL, which means that you have been in the business quite a long time. Of course, seamless.tv. So, I think that’s it for now and I guess we will hear from you soon.
ERIC: Excellent, thank you so much.
TRACY: This is Tracy Swedlow. We’ve just been speaking to Eric J. Gould Bear of MONKEYmedia and again you can reach them and read all about their patents at seamless.tv. You can find us at itvt.com, read all of our daily news and find out about our TV of Tomorrow Show, March 3rd through the 5th in San Francisco. We’ll be updating out TV of Tomorrow Show website next week, so stay tuned. Thank you so much.
Copyright [itvt] Swedlow 2009