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

161–170 of 302 posts

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

#161

Post by Someone »

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?

Also, what exactly do these patents cover? Every wired stereo I’ve seen had a volume control that changed the volume on all speakers. I’m sure such systems were already common half a century ago.

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

#162

Post by inetknght »

josefx wrote: post #88
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?

> Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over

Everyone says this. Unfortunately nobody reads the "contract". That alone means that most users do not fully understand what they're doing. On top of that, Google, and many tech companies, frequently misrepresent what they're offering.

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

#163

Post by hnburnsy »

alistairSH wrote: post #46
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 potentiall…

Voice control...

"My butt is cold"

"My butt is too hot"

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1v4m7aHk__Kdfkoed...

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

#164

Post by ocdtrekkie »

taubek wrote: post #2

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

There's a reason Google operates an entire stack for completely encrypted end-to-end communication to Google datacenters, including now encrypted DNS. Essentially anything connected to the Internet, Google can establish a completely unblockable communication with directly, provided you intend to allow it to connect to Google servers at all.

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

#165

Post by VikingCoder »

josho wrote: post #142
esens wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defi…

At a previous company, we had to _add code_ to our software in order to avoid violating a patent. Yes, if we just let our system do what it could, that violated a patent. We had to check for a certain condition, and disallow the generic system from doing a specific thing, in order to not get in trouble. Sorry, but that's insane.

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

#167

Post by alistairSH »

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.

Ugh. Subscriptions for things that don't require updates or continued support/infrastructure from the vendor drive me crazy.

The Opal C1 is a prime example. It's a webcam. If the feature-set at sale is acceptable to the consumer, there's no additional cost to Opal (no servers to maintain etc) to necessitate a subscription.

It's been posted many times, but it's a good one, so...

The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it."

― Philip K. Dick, Ubik

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

#168

Post by sp332 »

duxup wrote: post #92
MereInterest wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.

> having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.

I don't think it was fraud specifically, but having sold something they weren't allowed to sell, they should refund the customers who are losing the features.

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

#169

Post by easton_s »

Linus Tech Tips has a current video showing this kind if patent "non-obvious"-ness was broken long before the "with a computer" age. A mechanical calculator had to split the "divide" button into two buttons because another company had a patent on a "single button division" patent.

https://youtu.be/axtQvkSpoto?t=470

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

#170

Post by SSLy »

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…

Google participated in industrial espionage while having talks with Sonos, then implemented what they've learned in their products. That's patents working as designed.

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.

Post reply on HN