Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

usitc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#51

Post by vmception »

rektide wrote: post #49
vmception wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very routine to license patents We have no insight into what a licensing agreement would have looked like to judge We also have no idea if google just opted to not pay I cant hop on the “hostage industry” train without that detail

Im uninterested in my devices & functionality i use being ever subject to legal brawls, these ones & in general. Spotify is under no obligation to offer Fair Reasonable and Non-discrimatory license agreements. To say that license agreements are routine ignores the other half the time that agreements dont work out easily. A patent holder can hold the entire world back at their pleasure. In this case, over a couple lin…

Also true.

I would be open to an attempt at uniform licensing agreements, or some kind of regulatory approval on the licensing arrangements with comparative licenses considered.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#52

Post by codys »

yccs27 wrote: post #35
suddenexample wrote: post #2

As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://pat…

The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they can be controlled as a unit when grouped.

"Simple Jack panel, but computer controlled" is not novel and should not be patentable.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#53

Post by boondaburrah »

nceqs3 wrote: post #14
sabertoothed wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patent system is so broken.

Yes, so broken that the original inventors of a product class had to spend $50 million on litigation in not even a court, but rather a quasi court in DC after a trillion dollar company stole their IP, because it's the last place where patent holders in the US get a reasonably fair shake.

So broken that the original inventors aren't even part of the conversation, because neither the plaintiff or defendant invented any of this.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#54

Post by laserbeam »

Closi wrote: post #8
suddenexample wrote: post #2

As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://pat…

> System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en This one in particular seems way too broad. So... they have a patent on the concept of deducting latency from a message to synchronize clocks? (and then sending data with a timestamp for when it will play?)

Irrespective of the patent details, this is actually a fun and not at all straightforward hardware project to implement. I had a failed attempt at this in uni, and synchronizing audio across multiple computers (rasps) is a really cool challenge.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#55

Post by throwawayboise »

DangitBobby wrote: post #33
yccs27 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the HN-pleasing "Patents are horrible" (to which I agree btw), the patents are very specifically about the opposite of independent volume control: They are about setting up groups of speakers which can be controlled together.

How could such a simple and obvious concept be patented?

Yes, I think there is value in the patent system but the concept of what qualifies as "novel" and "non-obvious" seems to be way off.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#56

Post by ra-mos »

akersten wrote: post #32
ra-mos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because at one point in time that was an innovation. You said it yourself.

Where did I say that was an innovation? And if it was an innovation at some point in time, I insist it was the year stereo was invented and the concept was just as invalid as a patent as it is today. Of course you expect the volume of your Left and Right channel to be controlled by the same volume knob. This patent is like a car manufacturer patenting the idea of controlling all your direction with a single steering…

Your next metaphor is worse. If a steering system wan an invention/innovation than it deserves ip rights.

What are you on? Should everything be equally competed in society, even after invention?

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#57

Post by ycIsGarbage »

vmception wrote: post #37
DiabloD3 wrote: post #23

I'm not a patent lawyer, but can anyone explain to me how this wasn't already covered by either part of multi-zone systems in the 80s/90s, or part of literally every single room correction tech since the late 90s? Sonos didn't exist when this technology was invented. Edit: Surprised I'm getting downvoted for this. All the patents listed are things multi-zone and room correcting systems already do. Look at technology…

The ITC cant invalidate patents so it was never part of the question ITC can only look at imports and damages - aka lack of profit split - where they were due And they found they were due, given the existence of the patent valid during the time in question Feel free to correct me I’m wrong about the ITC

The ITC can definitely adjudicate invalidity.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#58

Post by waych »

vineyardmike wrote: post #46
MBCook wrote: post #40

So Google buys Sonos by the end of the week?

But i like my sonos products and want them to work for more than another few weeks... and theres no sonos chat app so why would they want sonos really?

"theres no sonos chat app" ... yet.

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#59

Post by ocdtrekkie »

metadat wrote: post #16
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google explicitly partnered with Sonos in a collaborative project to find out how Sonos' tech worked, then copied it. It's plausible that Sonos feels Google explicitly stole from them, and Apple built something else. Or, empowered by a win against Google, they file suit against Apple tomorrow. No reason to be in two high cost lawsuits at the same time.

Any source to back up this claim? This sounds unusually stupid, even for Goggle - because they could've just poached a few engineers and it would be less risky than public, high-profile corporate espionage.

It's a core part of Sonos' complaint, I am sure you could find it in the legal filings, but this article about a preliminary injunction against Google in Germany about the same issue starts with that detail in particular: https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021

Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

#60

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jvolkman wrote: post #43
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google explicitly partnered with Sonos in a collaborative project to find out how Sonos' tech worked, then copied it. It's plausible that Sonos feels Google explicitly stole from them, and Apple built something else. Or, empowered by a win against Google, they file suit against Apple tomorrow. No reason to be in two high cost lawsuits at the same time.

Why would Google need to partner/collaborate to steal what would be publicly described in a patent?

My guess would be that the patent lacks some of the implementation details, and allowed them to create a product that worked as well easily. Bear in mind, most generic-sounding software patents aren't going to give you any actual code to look at.
Post reply on HN