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

171–180 of 302 posts

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

#171

Post by mtarnovan »

josephcsible wrote: post #68
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.

> let shitty mega corps duke it out The problem with that is that we the customers end up as collateral damage.

Exactly. Case in point: Sonos not getting along with Google means the Youtube Music app doesn't allow casting to a Sonos speaker directly (like the Spotify app for example). This means I have to use the Sonos app, which "wraps" the Youtube API, but in a very shitty way (there's lots of contents that I can easily find if I search for it on Youtube directly, but the same search string gives no or bad results if searched in the Sonos app). Not sure if this is just a poor implementation of the YT API by Sonos or more bad will on Google's part (I'm inclined to think it's the first), but either way the user experience is horrible. It's so bad that the Sonos speaker basically sits there unused (even though the sound quality is very good).

I'm not taking Sonos' part here though: like other people here pointed out, I'm pretty sure they patented some very obvious things which they should imo never have gotten a patent for in the first place.

edited to add this link for reference: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-t...

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

#172

Post by nybble41 »

rlpb wrote: post #107
gameshot911 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the moral situation change if I the seller make you agree not to tamper with the product before I sell it to you, and you do so?

Either I own it or I don't. If you don't want me to tamper with it, then you can't sell it to me. You can give me use of it under some other kind of agreement, but then you can't misrepresent that as a "sale".

While I agree that the owner has every right to modify their own property, I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. That's just a sale combined with a standard performance contract. You would retain the right to make changes—doing so does not infringe on the seller's rights, as they are no longer the owner—but there would be consequences for doing so because of the second part of the contract which you voluntarily agree to as a condition of the sale.

Of course a penalty clause like this is demanding quite a large concession from the buyer, so I would hope people would tend to be reluctant to agree to such terms. It's also not the sort of thing you could easily claim was included in an implied contract without explicit notification and formal consent.

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

#173

Post by dirtybird04 »

Veen wrote: post #113
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.

Is Apple Music really crap? Their UI isn't the slickest but their service, audio quality, and music catalog is top notch. And unlike their Swedish counterparts, they aren't trying to push crappy podcasts on me to up their revenue

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

#174

Post by cmurf »

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 agree. But the Apple culture of selling an experience not a product, with a claimed residual ownership of the hardware to prevent you from completely understanding or controlling how it works and what software runs on it, and who can repair it, is being widely replicated now. John Deere. Tesla.

Requiring owners to use OEM parts to avoid manufacturer voiding the warranty, is a violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act. I don't see why tech companies get away with what automobile companies know they can't. https://www.aftermarketnews.com/hyundai-issues-statement-on-... https://blog.amsoil.com/a-victory-for-consumer-freedom/

Had this act not existed, had the FTC not had the power to send out nasty grams on behalf of consumers, you'd only be able to put in GM branded motor oil to keep your automobile warranty from being voided. It's going to take a broad right to repair law to stop the trend, and unfortunately I'm not sure we'll get it because tech buys politicians. And the vast majority of consumers really just don't give a shit about understanding technology or repair. They willingly just shell out the cash.

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

#175

Post by betterunix2 »

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…

It is not true that anyone knowledgeable in a field finds everything in that field straightforward. For example, Schoof's algorithm for counting points on elliptic curves was so non-obvious to relevant experts that he struggled to get his paper through peer review. Diffie also struggled to get his ideas about public-key cryptography published because experts in relevant fields did not understand how such an idea could even make sense. Another example is Gentry's original FHE construction, which was not at all obvious even to experts in lattice theory or any other relevant field of cryptography or math. It pains me to say this, but Bitcoin is also an example; check out the response on the cryptography mailing list, where several prominent experts in the field were confused by the concept of electronic payments that do not require any bank to issue and redeem the money.

Those are just what I know off the top of my head from my own field. While there is plenty of incremental research in any field and plenty of situations where a motivated expert would have arrived at the same basic concept, it is not outlandishly uncommon for a truly novel, non-obvious idea to be presented. The problem for patent examiners is that they are not experts and the pace of software innovation leaves them baffled by the applications they are examining; there are also too few patent examiners to handle the volume of applications that are submitted.

One way to address the problem is to just abolish software patents entirely. Software was never meant to be patentable, at least not if you recognize software as a form of applied math (happy to argue this one all day long) and accept the idea that math is not (or should not be) patentable.

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

#176

Post by s17n »

What's really frustrating about this situation for me is that Google has given up on audio (discontinued Chromecast Audio, no replacement for Home Max) but as a result of this bullshit, I also can't use my Google products with Sonos, the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well. Instead, Google's strategy is to partner with a bunch of legacy audio companies (https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-in/audio/) where you just know that the firmware is going to be jank and the products will all eventually be discontinued, and in the long run these companies are dinosaurs and they are all going to die.

I just clicked through to the NAD chromecast amp and instead of giving me a price and a "buy now" button, there is a "find a dealer" button. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

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

#177

Post by jrockway »

leoedin wrote: post #38
alistairSH wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Sonos claims Google actually did steal the technology. And the court agrees. From the article: 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 woul…

The feature is about adjusting the volume of a group of speakers together. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing that you'd need to copy Sonos' source code to implement. Maybe that inside look lead Google to decide to enter the market, but I really doubt the person who wrote the speaker-group volume functionality had ever seen anything from Sonos. If they had they'd be facing copyright infringement lawsuits too.…

I think Google and Sonos had some partnership agreement in place, which makes this more complicated.

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

#178

Post by carlmcqueen »

inetknght wrote: post #162
josefx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or even continually change it. So even if you agreed with original terms, to continue using it you have to keep accepting the changes.

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

#179

Post by darkarmani »

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…

> they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations.

That's still a problem. Suppose company X has a real innovation that is worth billions of dollars and google sues them using "bogus" patents? Most patents suck, but there are some that actually cover real innovation.

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

#180

Post by kodah »

> Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos's 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.

Did anyone lose their job?

Post reply on HN