Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied • Hacker News Board

nosianu wrote: post #18

Sorry, but for this link I only get 404 Page Not Found We're sorry for any inconvenience. We can't find the page you're looking for. I would not say anything if it said "blocked for your IP/country", but it appears there is nothing any more behind that link. Was the article removed? EDIT: Ad-blocker (uBlock Origin) off and the page loads. I should have thought of that, there was a flicker of something else before the…

The article is appearing for me (US).

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#24

Post by mhb » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

If only Google could settle this by creating some software for Sonos to make their interface usable.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#25

Post by boringg » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

This is interesting from a google perspective. From an active Sonos user (4 speakers throughout the house) - I can say that as a product it seems to be getting better but is pretty tough to work with. It doesn't work well with Spotify unless you use their app (why would I want to add another app thats poorly designed for music) - and getting multiple speakers to work together is hit or miss (how ? It's supposed to be a core feature of the system).

I'm torn as I don't really want to support Google - I also don't support Sonos it is a mediocre product wrapped up in a ton of marketing. In the end I guess I'm neutral.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#26

Post by snickerer » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought.

My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order.

Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#27

Post by zaarn » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

mattmcknight wrote: post #20

Bud wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be good to read the patents before posting this comment. The patents in the suit are far, far more detailed than Inc's throwaway one-line description in this article. Sonos' tech here also involves seamless automatic wireless setup and automatically assessing relative speaker volume for a given space, and all kinds of other things. If you've set up a group of Sonos speakers, versus any of the competitors, you k…

If the patent didn't cover adjusting the volume for a group of speakers, why did Google have to disable it? While the patent portfolio did include other things, Google is being forced to disable the basic, obvious feature.

Google is not being forced to disable this feature, Google decided to. They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature like they did, after all.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#28

Post by alistairSH » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

Infringing on patents need not involve "copying" or "stolen technology", and shitty outlets like Inc. know their framing is BS.

But Sonos claims Google actually did steal the technology. And the court agrees.

From the article: Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos' speakers, the latter company gave the search giant an inside look at its technology. At the time, it didn't seem like a big deal. Google wasn't making speakers, and it wasn't in the smart home business at all. It would be another year before it bought Nest as a way to get into the hardware business. Sonos says that as a result of that inside look, Google "blatantly and knowingly" copied its technology and included it in its own products.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#29

Post by Bud » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

davweb wrote: post #19

Bud wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be good to read the patents before posting this comment. The patents in the suit are far, far more detailed than Inc's throwaway one-line description in this article. Sonos' tech here also involves seamless automatic wireless setup and automatically assessing relative speaker volume for a given space, and all kinds of other things. If you've set up a group of Sonos speakers, versus any of the competitors, you k…

One the relevant patents [1] does just appear to be describing connecting speakers in a group. [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en

No post body was provided.

Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

#30

Post by CommanderData » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #12

taubek wrote: post #2

Can you block devices from getting an "upgrade" which is basically a "downgrade"?

You can, but you’d then be personally violating the patent. That’s illegal, and then you too could also be sued.

I'm not sure if blocking an update for whatever reason would count as patent infringement on part of a end-user.