Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 302 posts

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

#41

Post by josephcsible »

bsedlm wrote: post #35
snickerer wrote: post #26

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…

What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they'r…

> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)?

Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.

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

#42

Post by kleiba »

For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group.

Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?

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

#43

Post by Bud »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #31
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…

I've had to set up Sonos equipment in our corporate network (because President gonna President) and frankly I wasn't that impressed. I imagine it works a lot better for home users, but here I had to downgrade WPA3 to WPA2 to get them to see each other on the network, you have to use an IGMP proxy if you want a client to be able to connect from a different VLAN, and things get very confused if you have two different v…

I agree with you about this part. I do general IT support and have had to set up one of my clients with a large number of Sonos speakers in their office. It was a pain and the tech doesn't seem to be as good of a match for corporate networks.

Has worked incredibly well in my home, though.

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

#44

Post by Mikeb85 »

kleiba wrote: post #42

For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?

The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?

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

#45

Post by josephcsible »

In the pre-Internet days, if company A sold a bunch of products to customers that violated company B's patent, company B could go after company A for money and an injunction against selling more products, but they couldn't send goons to break in to all of the customers' houses to damage the already-sold products. Why is the equivalent okay today?

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

#46

Post by alistairSH »

snickerer wrote: post #26

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…

Totally agree - I hate that consumer electronics, now including very expensive products like cars, are black-box with OTA updates that can alter functionality in undesirable ways.

The latest update from Tesla including a significant UI update which many owners are unhappy about. One example I heard was the seat-heat control is now buried one level lower in the menu. Not only is that an annoying change, but potentially has safety ramifications - putting controls in a touchscreen is bad enough, but burying them makes those controls unsafe to use underway.

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

#47

Post by lkxijlewlf »

kleiba wrote: post #42

For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?

The argument I see often is things like this seem trivial after the fact.

But isn't that what computers are supposed to be for; networking and connecting devices so that one can control them easily?

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

#49

Post by neuronic »

dhosek wrote: post #7
thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

I really wish there would be some kind of overhaul in patents. Why was a patent for "The technology in question relates to the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume." ever granted? That seems like the very first thing you would do when connecting two speakers. Unless this is some kind of ai that tracks where you are and dynamically changes volumes to maintain a surround sound feel or somethin…

From the article, I gathered that the patent isn't on the idea of doing so but the specific implementation. In short, Google took the knowledge they gained from the internals of how the Sonos speakers worked and copied that directly. This is a bit different from, say a patent on a virtual shopping cart where it's more the idea than how it's implemented.

Yep, Google just blatantly copied Sonos engineering like some Chinese scammer and expects to get away with it.

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

#50

Post by nicce »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #47
kleiba wrote: post #42

For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?

The argument I see often is things like this seem trivial after the fact. But isn't that what computers are supposed to be for; networking and connecting devices so that one can control them easily?

Yes, but is the patent about concept or specific tecnical solution? If it is about the concept, it blows my mind…
Post reply on HN