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

81–90 of 302 posts

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

#81

Post by s1mon »

Bud wrote: post #11
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…

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…

The synchronization of multiple zones is definitely non-trivial. Many years ago I had a few Apple Airport Expresses which had audio out. In theory you could use Airplay with these to do much the same thing as Sonos for a lot cheaper. In a one-bedroom apartment, we have 3 zones (bedroom, living room, kitchen) which are all close enough that there's a lot of opportunities to hear sound from 2 or 3 systems at the same time. With Apple it was never in sync. Small delays make the sound miserable. I finally bit the bullet and bought 3 Sonos units. They just work when it comes to the sync.

There are other aspects which made Sonos far superior to just using Apple's Airplay and iTunes, but those are not covered in the patents in question.

My assumption is that if getting 3 devices to stay in sync - with what I assume is UDP streams and WiFi latency hiccups - was easy or even somewhat difficult, Apple would have been able to solve it. But they couldn't. There must be some special sauce here that Sonos developed and patented.

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

#82

Post by halpert »

nicce wrote: post #50
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not about the concept, it's about the specific UI they used to do it. However, there are not many ways to represent the concept in a UI, which is where Google is running into a problem.

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

#83

Post by ncallaway »

Semaphor wrote: post #63
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…

Another thing I’m currently realizing as I’m building my own completely local smart assistant (based on Rhasspy): Those black boxes are a lot cheaper. Just the hardware I need to replace an Echo Dot (and excluding the Pi 4 that does the heavy processing) could buy me 2 - 3 Echo Dots from Amazon.

I’ve just started searching for completely local voice assistants, and had only found Mycroft.

Thanks for mentioning Rhasspy, that looks like exactly what I want (my search skills failed me yesterday).

And I completely agree about HW costs. Just getting a decent mike and speaker peripheral gets you close to the price point of the echo dot.

I’m curious how much researching you’ve put into HW options, and if you’re currently leaning toward any specific HW

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

#84

Post by trentnix »

zzt123 wrote: post #55
nicce wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One-click buy was a patent so…

And Amazon paid a number of talking heads and tech luminaries to help them with the blowback they were getting at the time for such a trivial patent. Scumbags, all.

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

#85

Post by halpert »

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?

From my reading of the patent, it's not that the concept of speaker groupings was patented. Rather, a specific UI for showing and modifying the groupings and adjusting the volume. Unfortunately, there aren't many different ways to represent groupings in a UI.

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

#86

Post by ianferrel »

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?

It's true that genuine advances often seem trivial after the fact, and it can sometimes be hard to distinguish them. In this case, having one volume control multiple connected speakers is how wired stereos have worked for many decades, so while it might have been state of the art in the 1930s, Sonos wasn't involved.

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

#87

Post by bryanrasmussen »

josephcsible wrote: post #45

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?

because products are sold with an easy to break functionality of the product function added to them.

If it were possible to know where all people lived with the product in the old days, and we had instant cheap teleportation of goons for breaking of products back then it would have just been the way things were done.

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

#88

Post by josefx »

josephcsible wrote: post #45

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?

Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over with online update at any time it feels like it and you have absolutely no legal expectation that your Google toy will still work tomorrow? Let alone have any of the features you bought it with?

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

#89

Post by dahfizz »

charcircuit wrote: post #58
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…

>I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) Sure, but you can't change it to do something that violates someone's patent without licensing it.

I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.

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

#90

Post by duxup »

halpert wrote: post #85
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?

From my reading of the patent, it's not that the concept of speaker groupings was patented. Rather, a specific UI for showing and modifying the groupings and adjusting the volume. Unfortunately, there aren't many different ways to represent groupings in a UI.

UI to do that seems awfully basic.
Post reply on HN