[1] French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ explained that the information–expression dichotomy has been central to the social contract which has underpinned copyright law since the Statute of Anne.

[2]: [53]–[54] Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ reviewed the history of copyright law in Australia and the United States, noting the protection for "compilations of data" required by the 1994 TRIPS Agreement and 1996 Database Directive.

[2]: [131]  Referring to Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., they found that the Full Court "approached the issue of substantiality at too high a level of abstraction, and in doing so tipped the balance too far against the interest of viewers of digital free to air television in the dissemination by means of new technology of programme listings.

[3] It suggested that the courts might be retreating from the position held or assumed in previous cases, particularly Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd, which focused on the skill and labour used simply to create the compilation and the interests of the creator and copier.

[5] Subsequent decisions of the Federal Court of Australia have applied IceTV by finding that copyright does not subsist in newspaper headlines[6] or telephone directories.