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

231–240 of 302 posts

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

#231

Post by jacquesm »

s17n wrote: post #176

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-…

Sonos is a great implementation of a brilliant concept and a crappy company at the same time.

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

#232

Post by timcosta »

recursive wrote: post #225
s17n wrote: post #176

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-…

Last time I looked, I can't play my audio on a Sonos system. It's a complete non-starter.

Play 5s have an aux in on the back, and if you have your music in spotify on your PC you can use the sonos speakers/groups as an output from the desktop app (and maybe with other services too, i just use spotify so i know this one)

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

#233

Post by onphonenow »

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…

Seriously, how in the WORLD is this patentable. Movie theatres, stadiums, high end home AV has all had this forever.

What a trash headline too. "Google doesn't want to pay for Sonos technology"...

What innovation is this? Speaker groups - has no one used a high end AV system. Zone A Zone B etc, and you have a remote etc for all this?

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

#234

Post by onphonenow »

phicoh wrote: post #214
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…

I think the test is simple: give a bunch of experts the claims in the patent and not how the patent implements the claim. If the experts can find a way to implement the claim in a relatively short period, then the claim is obvious and should be rejected. Of course it is possible that a more specific claim is not obvisous. For example, if there are specific performance requirements. If the initial claims are obvisious…

This is actually a FANTASTIC idea!

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

#235

Post by xboxnolifes »

tssva wrote: post #190
josho wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The patent in questions covers using a controller device on a LAN which presents a UI to the user to raise, lower or mute/unmute volume which then raises, lowers or mutes/unmutes the volume across a set of speakers grouped together on the LAN. It does not cover a specific method of doing this. Any method accomplishes the above would be covered by the patent.

I feel like "using a UI that communicates over LAN", on it's own, isn't something that should be patentable for anything at this point. That's just basic network communication now. Now, if the device being communicated with did something interesting maybe there is a case on that end, but I'm not familiar enough to comment.

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

#236

Post by synesthesiam »

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.

Rhasspy author here. Thanks for the shout-out :)

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

#238

Post by marcosdumay »

dmitriid wrote: post #56
Mikeb85 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?

The "rounded corners" narrative needs to die. It wasn't just rounded corners. It was a combination of design features for a specific device that, among other things, included rounded corners.

Apple owned the concept of a portable screen with round corners and a grid of colored icons.

They had to restrict the icons into colored because there was prior art for B&W. The entire thing is a farce.

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

#240

Post by Bud »

tssva wrote: post #197
Bud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, we already know, and the details in the suit prove it. Sonos engineers used packet sniffing. Google copied the precise techniques Sonos uses to set up and control speakers.

The techniques used are standard protocols that almost all media devices use and not some proprietary technology of Sonos.

Not true. The setup techniques are not standard protocols. Far from it.
Post reply on HN