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

141–150 of 302 posts

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

#141

Post by ceras »

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #59
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?

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.

Not all companies have an aggressive patent strategy. Historically, I believe Google felt negatively about software patents, and had fewer than other tech companies. Eventually they bought a large portfolio of patents (e.g. through the Motorola acquisition; when they later sold Motorola, they kept the patents) so that they could use them defensively, because not having enough patents became a liability.

Even after that, I believe Google only used their patents defensively: they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations. When I worked there, that was the impression the company gave off, and some initiatives like "Alliance for Open Media" the other commenter mentioned are in line with that.

I don't think Google is unique in this: older tech companies seem to have more aggressive patent strategies, whereas newer (.com era and onward) seem to dislike software patents but are forced to play the game by more aggressive companies and patent trolls. It's a drag on the industry IMO.

The biggest losers are newer and smaller companies, who haven't had enough time or resources to build up a defensive patent portfolio.

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

#142

Post by josho »

esens wrote: post #118
alok-g wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-obvi…

Controlling volume to a set of speakers via a remote is something we’ve been doing in the analog world for decades. So a general patent on volume control across speakers should be invalidated.

It only becomes novel due to the details of the tech. But even then you could implement the solution in various ways and I can’t imagine every potential method was patented.

So, while I agree the non-obvious can be hard to define. But with patents like this I don’t think we’ve found the right balance.

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

#144

Post by techsin101 »

strictnein wrote: post #106
techsin101 wrote: post #5

i doubt this is the end of it, i hope this gets overruled.

I too hope the 1.82T dollar company doesn't have to pay the company that's roughly 500x smaller than it is.

this is patent trolling, stuff getting patented is control volume on speakers, swipe on mobile app, double tap to open something... completely obvious non-sense.

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

#145

Post by josho »

ceras wrote: post #141
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.

Not all companies have an aggressive patent strategy. Historically, I believe Google felt negatively about software patents, and had fewer than other tech companies. Eventually they bought a large portfolio of patents (e.g. through the Motorola acquisition; when they later sold Motorola, they kept the patents) so that they could use them defensively, because not having enough patents became a liability. Even after th…

Young companies typically aren’t aggressive on their patents because they are seeking growth. When their growth stalls out that’s when a shift to monetizing their patents occur.

I’m starting to understand the capitalism is cancer arguments. Infinite growth is unsustainable. So inevitably companies that were once great need to use tactics like this to continue their infinite growth trajectory.

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

#147

Post by Jensson »

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #59
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?

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.

As far as I know Google are very open that they never use their patents offensively, they just have them as a defence against other companies attacking them with patents. I think that is still true today, can't find any articles about Google suing companies over patents without being sued first.

Now that Googles founders are no longer leading the company that might change, but so far their "do not be evil" still lives on in this regard, at least it did a few years ago.

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

#148

Post by iratewizard »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #51
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…

That's the world we're moving towards. I was recently looking at the Opal C1. Looks great. $300 is a bit rich, but the kicker was they want $4/month for the software! Now, maybe the camera will function without it? I dunno, I kinda stopped right there and didn't look further because that turned me off.

Key fobs, cameras, and everything else wrapped up with a subscription service. Appliances built to fail so that you won't mind renting every major purchase in your house. Single family homes being bought up by REITs like Blackrock, so a larger proportion of the population has to rent for life. Endless printing of money to devalue what you have and enrich the architects of the broken system. Useless idiots fighting to empower said architects, entranced by the promise of endless charity bringing them to prosperity.

It's a creative form of slavery at least.

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

#149

Post by ocdtrekkie »

RealityVoid wrote: post #16

You know what, this is bullshit. They are making the customers pay for Google's problems. This is unacceptable, what blame do they have for the IP troubles? Google should pay, if it's deemed to be infringing, but the functionality should stay the same for the customer. Imagine this, someone coming to your house to hobble your product's functionality because another company sued the company you bought the product from…

Google doesn't and hasn't ever cared if their approach is ethical. It cares that this approach is legal (sometimes), and profitable (always). Do not expect ethics from big corporations.

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

#150

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

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…

You should be allowed to risk your own danger.
Post reply on HN