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

111–120 of 302 posts

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

#111

Post by lostmsu »

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.

Doesn't regular volume slider controls multiple remote speakers in case of connected Bluetooth headphones?

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

#112

Post by bsedlm »

josephcsible wrote: post #41
bsedlm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The car example is a terrible example. I only used it because it's a well known example.

But I'm actually thinking about digital computer techonology. In computers the difference between able and allowed works very differently. Specially in software-only contexts (hardware will likely remain hackable).

I'm trying to draw attention to the software-only case (which is also what the article's about).

My nightmare scenario is that by some means, things like web-inpsector tools cease to work, or require a licensed regulated permission to be opened or something.

A technology like WASM, it seems to me, accomplishes a similar goal without trying to do it. The goal of WASM is completely unrelated to restricting inspect-ability, which in turn reduces the ability to modify, yet it manages to do this, it raises the bar for changing webpages.

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

#113

Post by Veen »

boringg wrote: post #104

Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…

In my experience, Sonos hardware is great but their software is woefully bad: slow, buggy junk. But then, the same is true of Apple's stuff: HomePod hardware is very impressive, but Siri and Apple Music are crap.

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

#114

Post by jcranberry »

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?

Amazon had one click buying patented for a long time. It should have expired by now but I don't know whether there's any mechanism to extend it.

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

#115

Post by jjoonathan »

alok-g wrote: post #96
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 system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved. In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.

If the USPTO gets to keep any part of the fees it charges, it is heavily incentivized to allow silly patents through the "non-obvious" gate. Defining "non-obvious" might be tricky, but fixing the incentives would be comparatively straightforward if they are half as broken as they appear to be.

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

#116

Post by katbyte »

boringg wrote: post #104

Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…

Well because of this I’ll never buy another Sonos product, and recommend everyone I know to something else. I wonder if lost revenue from people like me will make up for any gains here.

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

#118

Post by esens »

alok-g wrote: post #96
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 system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved. In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.

The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context.

Thus defining "non-obviousness" is super hard to do -- because it is all context dependent and humans are like a million monkeys inventing everything that can possibly be invented in aggregate.

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

#119

Post by rektide »

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.

That seems much more like an idea than an invention to me.

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

#120

Post by mason55 »

chaosharmonic wrote: post #67
strikelaserclaw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda crappy but i'm sure google has tons of patents on things we would find trivial as well, as far as i'm concerned, let shitty mega corps duke it out.

That's also a feedback loop though, that exists in part specifically because of how easy and common patent trolling has been. They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will , and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved. There's a reason orgs like the Alliance for Open Media -- a Google-led initiative -- use licensing…

> They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will, and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved.

It also works as a way to keep incumbents in power. Say Google has 100 important mobile OS patents and Apple has 100 important mobile OS patents. It makes sense for them to cross-license. But a new mobile OS entrant has nothing of interest to Google or Apple and so no way to get access to those important patents.

Post reply on HN