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

111–120 of 127 posts

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

#111

Post by jabbawookiees »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #69
jabbawookiees wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proper…

I don't believe you're correct that intellectual property has slowed down progress.

Linux and the GNU project use copyright and they're doing well. Arguably better than the permissive BSDs for which copyright law might as well not exist. But even GNU/Linux falls far behind Windows and MacOS for regular desktop users.

Software is already the ultimate gift-able creation where you can make something for yourself and everyone else. It's cheap to make at home and it's free to distribute. Yet even here commercial products protected by IP are still far superior to things made by hobbyists just wanting to share with the world.

Medicines? Most biotechnologists I know are working at university research labs aiming to churn papers or they're working at a company that exists because of patent law. I don't know anyone researching new drugs in their spare time just to gift it to the world.

So I guess as a counterpoint, I know a hundred startup founders who made something looking to make a buck. I know zero people working on expensive technical problems purely because they care about solving it.

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

#112

Post by hiptobecubic »

jetrink wrote: post #7
okwubodu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I wonder if any of those cover switching devices. You used to be able to say, "Hey Google, move that to the kitchen," and whatever you were listening to would stop and continue in the kitchen. It still understands the command, but then fails with an error. That feature was something that I used every morning as I moved through the house getting ready for the day. I can't point to a single thing that these devices do…

I noticed this not working the other day as well.

Honestly, my feeling is that using Google Home is asking for trouble and frustration. It already barely works, but it's not hard to imagine some future where the company that built your front door lock is ordered to stop providing service by some court that finds it in violation of a patent.

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

#113

Post by monocasa »

jabbawookiees wrote: post #111
SequoiaHope wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proper…

I don't believe you're correct that intellectual property has slowed down progress. Linux and the GNU project use copyright and they're doing well. Arguably better than the permissive BSDs for which copyright law might as well not exist. But even GNU/Linux falls far behind Windows and MacOS for regular desktop users. Software is already the ultimate gift-able creation where you can make something for yourself and eve…

Literally every new drug approved between 2010 and 2016 came from NIH funding.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2329

The biotechnologists I know tell me "patent law is totally screwed up for biomed, but I guess because it works for traditional tech it's near impossible to remove". They're flabbergasted when I tell them tech says the inverse. Everywhere seems to have this idea that this other niche absolutely requires it.

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

#114

Post by comprambler »

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…

Where is the Logitech/Squeezebox/Slim Devices patent war chest here? They have had volume on multi zone prior to 2012, syncing audio playback devices together, as well as having multichannel audio going to different squeezeboxes. These all seem to have at least prior art behind them and thus are indefensible.

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

#115

Post by AlbertCory »

eganist wrote: post #100
AlbertCory wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

https://www.itcblog.com/488-did-you-know-determinations-of-p... "Infringement, validity, and/or enforceability" constrained to section 337, per the above legal analysis. IANAL

However the Federal Circuit has held that “ITC findings neither purport to be, nor can they be, regarded as binding interpretations of the U.S. patent laws in particular factual contexts.

OK, we're splitting hairs, but an ITC determination that your patent is invalid doesn't render it useless in other contexts.

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

#116

Post by AlbertCory »

hackthefender wrote: post #102
AlbertCory wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

See answer to the other poster.

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

#117

Post by hackthefender »

AlbertCory wrote: post #116
hackthefender wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See answer to the other poster.

For what it's worth, this isn't limited to invalidity. For example, ITC findings that a product infringes also are not binding on courts. The reason for all this is that the ITC is an administrative agency rather than an Article III tribunal.

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

#118

Post by AlbertCory »

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.

Good point. This is called "written description" or "enablement." I researched this in some depth and even have a unfinished paper on the subject. To me it's the silver bullet to ending software patents, or one of the bullets.

The legal standard, believe it or not, is that you don't even need a detailed flowchart, let alone source code. The actual code is something anyone skilled in the art can do, sorta like a lab tech determining the exact temperature and pressure to use to manufacture your chemical compound.

I was in some informal discussion in Google Legal, and someone stated unequivocally, "source code will never be required in patent descriptions."

You have to ask "Why TF not?" I think the answer, at least the non-quiet part () is "the PTO is not equipped to judge your source code's adequacy. Any skilled coder can write the code."

( cynicism alert) the quiet part is "that would put us all out of business."

It's totally reasonable to require that a patentee checks his source code and build files into GitHub or some other repository. Probably the PTO should contract with someone to build a repository and they will operate it.

The lawyers and politicians and PTO will never do this on their own. Software engineers will have to organize and force it through. A lengthy flame on HN will not accomplish that.

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

#119

Post by HotHotLava »

bluGill wrote: post #105
HotHotLava wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This particular patent specifically covers a mesh network of independent playback devices that can be dynamically rearranged into possibly overlapping zones, with the volume controls being on a separate device in the local network. That's pretty far removed from a simple hard-wired two-channel audio system.

I'm opposed to software patents in general so I also think this should not be patentable, but it's hard to deny that there's a ton of engineering effort required to implement such a system and its not just a matter of adding a few lines of code to an existing audio application.

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

#120

Post by HotHotLava »

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…

I'm also not a patent lawyer, but for example the multi-room volume control patent specifically covers a mesh network of independent playback devices that can be dynamically rearranged into possibly overlapping zones, with the volume controls being on a separate device in the local network.

I would be surprised if that already existed in the 90s? I'd actually already be surprised if network-connected speakers were around back then, let alone all the mesh networking stuff.

Post reply on HN