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

101–110 of 127 posts

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

#101

Post by [deleted] »

AlbertCory wrote: post #70
ycIsGarbage wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ple…

[deleted]

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

#102

Post by hackthefender »

AlbertCory wrote: post #70
ycIsGarbage wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ple…

You can, and everyone always does, litigate invalidity before ITC. (I am an IP litigator who has done it.) Note that the ITC cannot itself invalidate patents like district courts do, but they can--and often do--decline to issue an exclusion order because they believe the patent at issue is invalid.

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

#103

Post by cushychicken »

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…

Sonos has worked hard since its founding to quietly amass an impressive stable of streaming audio IP.

It's not a matter of "if" anyone is infringing on their IP. It's a matter of "who can they reasonably win a ruling against".

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

#104

Post by kllrnohj »

sho_hn wrote: post #90
vineyardmike wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Things like that usually require knowing the hardware characteristics of the device itself as well as some form of calibration range. For iOS Sonos can just buy (or borrow) a couple of iphones every year to generate that data. Doing the same on Android gets a lot harder thanks to the more diverse hardware ecosystem.

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

#105

Post by bluGill »

HotHotLava wrote: post #97
dodobirdlord wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point it becomes worth it to put in the effort to try to get the Sonos patents invalidated, and some of them seem very broad. Hard to believe that some of those things were “invented” only in the last 20 years. Most inventions aren’t patented, so I’d speculate that probably almost all patents could be invalidated by someone dedicated with a team of experts to scour history for prior art.

There was nothing comparable to a modern multiroom smart speaker around in 2001, so they certainly were invented in the last 20 years. Whether that was by Sonos or by someone else, and whether these specific patents should have been granted is another question of course.

I remember musik in the 1990s at the restaurant I worked at. We had it in the kitchen and a different channel in the seating area. Turn a switch on the wall to change channels, if the kitchen and seating were on the same channel then they had music in sync.

Now this was an entirely hardwired system, and there was no remote. I don't know what sonos's patents are for, but the idea was in place and the difference is do it by wireless computer.

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

#106

Post by rasz »

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.

As stupid as this sounds, this is usual Google MO coming all the way from the top with both Sergey Brin and Larry Page involved in person

"In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow"

https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...

https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...

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

#107

Post by bluGill »

kevincox wrote: post #99
AlbertCory wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, almost none of them. It's not required, although it ought to be.

Isn't the point of the patent that you share a technology in exchange for a temporary monopoly? If the patent doesn't have enough information to implement the technology it should be considered invalid.

That is the point but patents are written in legalese, not something engineers understand. I have talked to a few engineers who have patents and none of them could design the thing from the patent language - and invented it in the first place.

I don't know how to solve this problem, but it does seem like it is a problem worth solving.

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

#108

Post by ocdtrekkie »

kevincox wrote: post #99
AlbertCory wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, almost none of them. It's not required, although it ought to be.

Isn't the point of the patent that you share a technology in exchange for a temporary monopoly? If the patent doesn't have enough information to implement the technology it should be considered invalid.

This is definitely the original intent and idea of patents. I don't think it's functionally what happens today though.

I think I'd be much happier with software patents if they were required to come with working code. Companies would likely be less willing to file their patents if they essentially were required to source available the code.

In practice here, Google is getting a patent infringement judgment, but it almost certainly included some trade secret theft, since the details of the patent aren't enough to reproduce the technology. We have an outcome that is reasonable, but I think based on some legal concepts that could use an update.

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

#109

Post by bluGill »

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)

To start with we need one standard. (xkcd fans will note that I said one not 15). Until there is one good standard (good meaning no way to misread it so your device isn't compatible with anyone else - this is hard)

In the US congress can set standards of weights and measures, it isn't hard to see how other things could be mandated based on that constitutional text.

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

#110

Post by bluGill »

ra-mos wrote: post #56
akersten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It was an invention. I'm into historic tractors, there are a number of interesting steering controls that companies played with in the 1800s. I've seen a tractor that you controlled with reigns (like a horse). I've seen tractors where there was levers not a wheel. The wheel quickly won out (AFAIK the wheel predates the ones I listed).

Today steering seems obvious, but only because a lot of inventors tried a lot of things some of which were bad ideas.

Post reply on HN