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

61–70 of 127 posts

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

#61

Post by ocdtrekkie »

okwubodu wrote: post #4
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…

> Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en Is this why I can’t change the volume on a Google Home speaker group anymore?

Google has confirmed some of these changes are related to this case, yes: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/11/04/google-phones-ch...

Prior to this ITC ruling, Google had already received an injunction in Germany.

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

#62

Post by varenc »

rektide wrote: post #36

It's so hard to imagine the entire industry being held hostage like this. My second thought is that this radically enhances the need for good IoT standards. Right now many devices are built to grant Google & Google alone the capability to control & orchestrate. Our devices are all vulnerable to legal attach because Google is the sole arbiter of control over our systems, and no one else has much of a say in how these…

I agree this is desirable for users, but platform lock in is a desirable property for most of the major device manufacturers. How do we motivate Sonos/Google/Apple/Philips Hue/Amazon/etc to actually build in better support for open standards? (small manufacturers already have that incentive, but they're a small part of the market)

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

#63

Post by Tostino »

ycIsGarbage wrote: post #57
vmception wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does anyone have a link saying either way here? Just want to be sure.

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

varenc wrote: post #62
rektide wrote: post #36

It's so hard to imagine the entire industry being held hostage like this. My second thought is that this radically enhances the need for good IoT standards. Right now many devices are built to grant Google & Google alone the capability to control & orchestrate. Our devices are all vulnerable to legal attach because Google is the sole arbiter of control over our systems, and no one else has much of a say in how these…

I agree this is desirable for users, but platform lock in is a desirable property for most of the major device manufacturers. How do we motivate Sonos/Google/Apple/Philips Hue/Amazon/etc to actually build in better support for open standards? (small manufacturers already have that incentive, but they're a small part of the market)

It's only a half-serious suggestion, but we could point them to the story of how accepting MIDI for electronic music device interoperability in the 1980s led to a massive explosion in that industry in which everyone benefitted.

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

#66

Post by TaylorAlexander »

cercatrova wrote: post #21
nceqs3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Software patents are an anathema on innovation. I'd go so far as to say all corporate patents are a hindrance to innovation. We're not in the days of singular inventors profiting off their inventions, which I'm fine with, as when corporations become patent trolls or create such broad patents like "able to play back on a device," then it gets a little ridiculous.

In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten years after patents expired they were $250 available worldwide. Today Prusa Research ships more 3D printers in three weeks than Stratasys sold for the first 20 years of their operation.

Imagine how much more productive mechanical engineers would have been if they had cheap 3D printers a decade sooner, and what the cumulative follow on effects would have been for the world. And then imagine what the economy would be like if everything moved that fast? It would change the nature of investment from less frequent massive investments to more frequent smaller investments as companies copied each other at will, but the rate of growth would be amazing! Think of how cheap we could make MRI machines and other medical imaging devices if this theory holds for that field.

Not to mention the extreme worldwide inequality perpetuated by intellectual property restrictions. How fast would the African continent develop if they were legally allowed to clone and copy the world's best manufacturing equipment and product designs.

Intellectual property is a disaster for humankind. So many people believe a fable about IP with no material basis in reality. We're told IP "encourages innovation" even when the actual material function of IP restrictions is to prohibit innovation around any patented idea.

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

#67

Post by tacticus »

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?

Something something sonos old gen products being bricked...

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

#68

Post by jabbawookiees »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #66
cercatrova wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents are an anathema on innovation. I'd go so far as to say all corporate patents are a hindrance to innovation. We're not in the days of singular inventors profiting off their inventions, which I'm fine with, as when corporations become patent trolls or create such broad patents like "able to play back on a device," then it gets a little ridiculous.

In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten year…

On the other hand, if you're a startup founder with a brilliant new idea (say, some new way to synchronize audio across multiple speakers), why would you ever leave a cushy corporate job to build it if nothing protects you from large corporations copying everything you've made?

It seems, judging by how people have been complaining that their Google Homes have been doing worse, that maybe the system is working as intended and Google ought to pay for patent licenses to the people who first took the risk to build these multispeaker systems and proved that it was a good idea.

It's possible that the solution isn't to scrap intellectual property entirely but update the numbers to reflect the more innovative and interconnected world of 2022 instead of the 1600s when it was officially conceived.

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

#69

Post by SequoiaHope »

jabbawookiees wrote: post #68
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten year…

On the other hand, if you're a startup founder with a brilliant new idea (say, some new way to synchronize audio across multiple speakers), why would you ever leave a cushy corporate job to build it if nothing protects you from large corporations copying everything you've made? It seems, judging by how people have been complaining that their Google Homes have been doing worse, that maybe the system is working as inte…

I think you're missing the fact that our entire world is being slowed down by this system, and a few tweaks are not going to change that. Yes it is true that in the current system Google could ask for permission to license this one patent, but what about the broader implications of patents as I have laid out? What about the people all over the world living in worse conditions than necessary due to intellectual property restrictions? How many people could have been enjoying a worldwide free library if Project Gutenburg had been allowed to continue? How much cheaper would cars and auto repair be if manufacturers cloned and copied each other to settle on a set of standard designs, as has been done in 3D printers? How many lives would have been saved in Swaziland/Eswatini in the 1990's if the WTO had not outlawed low cost clones of effective AIDS medications? [1]

For every potential startup founder who will only work on their problem if they can get paid, there are IMO 100 people who will work on a problem because they care about solving it. I don't think we would lose much if those motivated only by profit had less incentive. And keep in mind they would still have first mover advantage. Plus huge companies often don't care about little corners of the market, and there is lots of room for companies to serve market needs the bigger companies are ignoring. But if another company wants to compete and they can actually do a better job? We are hurting society if we restrict their ability to do that.

[1] https://www.mmegi.bw/features/the-neoliberal-plague-aids-and...

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

#70

Post by AlbertCory »

ycIsGarbage wrote: post #57
vmception wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Definitely" -- how do you know this? Citation please.

I actually don't know for certain and I was in Google Patent Litigation (as tech advisor). I never had a case before the ITC so I can't say 100%, but AFAIK only the PTO or a regular Federal court can declare a patent invalid.

But maybe they can say "well, this will probably be declared invalid, so we're going to stay the order." Like a German court can do. So please tell us one way or the other.

Post reply on HN