11–20 of 37 posts
> including synchronizing audio across groups of speakers, adjusting the group volume, and setting up devices on a local wireless network. I'm sorry but patents like this shouldn't really be enforceable, its completely anti-competitive.
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
What's with the random apostrophe in the title?
The title of the html page has a couple extra words. Maybe Verge tried to change the title to remove `Google lawsuit` and forgot the apostrophe. >Sonos’ Google lawsuit says what every smaller tech company was thinking: working with big tech sucks - The Verge
> including synchronizing audio across groups of speakers, adjusting the group volume, and setting up devices on a local wireless network. I'm sorry but patents like this shouldn't really be enforceable, its completely anti-competitive.
I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…
I haven’t read through the whole thing, but I did browse through one of the allegedly infringed patents (“method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system”) and it’s every bit as broad as you’d expect: https://patentswarm.com/patents/US8588949B2
And yet peole are claiming only the Chinese have IP issues...
That said, it can be simultaneously true that there are problems in these countries but that the environment is still significantly better for investment than in China (where - again, in my limited understanding - there's not simply very little recourse for IP, but government backed corpra is actively endorsing infringement)
> including synchronizing audio across groups of speakers, adjusting the group volume, and setting up devices on a local wireless network. I'm sorry but patents like this shouldn't really be enforceable, its completely anti-competitive.
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
These things strike me as quite trivial and I'm fairly confident we could probably find pre-Sonos prior art for all of them.
So what, nobody at tech wants to be responsible for a Docker strategy decision. The article still has no answer on why it is so difficult to actually get a Sonos to play nice with the two interfaces supplied by Amazon and Google. These are becoming industry standard functioning interfaces i.e. APIs that every consumer can hookup with IFTTT.
I really wish people (you) would read. > The other thing that rings true in the NYT story is the detail that Google told Sonos it would pull Google Assistant support if Sonos enabled simultaneous wake words. That’s the feature which lets speakers listen for both “Alexa” and “Okay Google” at the same time. Google really comes off looking like a bully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things strike me as quite trivial and I'm fairly confident we could probably find pre-Sonos prior art for all of them.
Same as how people were quite certain they could find prior art for one-click checkout?