Note how Google got a bunch of insight into Sonos tech, then turned around and re-implemented it. That's pretty low behavior.
The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
81–90 of 127 posts
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#82Google have just (in the last hour) announced changes to the behaviour of speaker groups "due to a legal ruling". https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker... It sounds like an absolute nightmare for users, and if I was affected I would be demanding a refund for every affected device, as they clearly are no longer functioning as expected at the time of purchase.
It's fun those automatic updates which are only there for security reasons isn't it?
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#83Sonos is a crappy company, and Google are idiots for copying them in such a blatant way. Mixed feelings.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
But did you pay the rent to Sonos while you were doing that project? It's, after all, their intelectual property now.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#85Earlier 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…
> 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?
The fact that your product will be on the market for years before competition arrives and you'll be a step ahead.
Instead, we're now stuck in a situation where jackboots for corporate lawyers break the neck of any startup innovator before they can even launch new products.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#86Is Sonos suing Apple as well? Seems like the tech in dispute is also used by HomePods and AirPlay. I can't quickly find anything about Sonos suing Apple, and in fact Apple was selling Sonos speakers in their stores in 2020 [1]. What is the deal? [1] https://www.imore.com/apple-begins-sell-sonos-speaker-compan...
I'm guessing Apple paid the rent to Sonos or the leadership of Sonos let them have it for free.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
No incentive might be hyperbolic, but this is an HN comment. I meant less incentive. https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
I would welcome a world where copyright restrictions ended 15 years from date of creation as this paper suggests, which would be a huge improvement from the status quo. Sadly the paper only seems to go over copyright. But take the 3D printer example. Development by my subjective take seemed way more effective without patents. So why have them at all? More people did more work on them after the patents expired. Why ha…
The argument would probably be that without patents, what reason does companies have to disclose methods of operation? Everything would become a trade-secret.
With patents the deal is as follows: Tell us how you made it and we will make sure that noone else copies it for a while. This system allows for knowledge to be shared between competing entities. One of the requirements for a patent is literally "The descriptions must be sufficient to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same".
For medication, the reason why it can even go off-patent is because the patent exists in the first place. Without the patent, there would be no public information about how to make the medication.
I'm not saying that this is the case for all inventions. But I do think that patents have their place. The current form might however need revisiting.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But did you pay the rent to Sonos while you were doing that project? It's, after all, their intelectual property now.
You don't know the year he/she went to University.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#89Earlier 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.
Yes, anyone who obtains a software patent is just a cheater, because they take advantage of the fact that now it is possible to obtain patents for things that could not be patented a half of century before.
If at the start of the computing industry it would have been possible to obtain the kind of software patents that are awarded now, nobody would have ever been able to write any programs without infringing patents, including those who now claim the right of forbidding to others to rediscover the same trivial methods for which they happened to file patent applications before others, mainly because nobody before them thought that such things are worthy of a patent.
If to their predecessors would have been granted the same kinds of software patents as today, none of those wanting to obtain software patents now could have been working in the computing industry, as it would have been much smaller.
Even the smallest physical design or computer program embodies numerous ideas that fortunately were discovered in a time when for anyone who discovered something new, the priority was to make it known to the public, without expecting many rewards besides the recognition of priority in advancement of science and technology.
Re: The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google will probably have to get the patents themselves removed, by proving prior work or such. Those patents are way too broad. I wonder what Bose does, they have their own multiroom system. Do they license the patents from Sonos?
> Do they license the patents from Sonos? IIRC Some other companies made agreements with Sonos to avoid suites (incl apple i blieve?), but sonos has claimed that google was bullying them over a number of things, including the claim that GAssistant only supports one assistant/wake word at a time, per contract, but alexa does not have this limitation. But thats apparently why the android app is worse, they don't suppor…
The major feature the Android app lacks is the "Trueplay" tuning. It relies on a phone to generate and record a sound to map out a room's acoustics, then optimizes the Sonos speaker's output for the room. I've always been wondering if the lack of Trueplay support is due to shortcomings in Android's audio APIs or something like this.