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

241–250 of 302 posts

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

#241

Post by sangnoir »

darkarmani wrote: post #179
ceras wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Suppose company X has a real innovation that is worth billions of dollars and google sues them using "bogus" patents?

Bogus patents will be dismissed, eventually. Going to court means commiting to a multiyear-process with no clear outcome if the other party has a hefty patent portfolio (regardless of how you characterize them). The process is quicker and more painful against those without defense,as Google learned when Apple decided to go "Thermonuclear" with patents.

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

#242

Post by Semaphor »

synesthesiam wrote: post #236
Semaphor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Thank you for your amazing work. Discovering Rhasspy is what made me realize that replacing Alexa with something completely local is actually possibly :)

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

#243

Post by Retric »

dpark wrote: post #211
dmitriid wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They both have lot’s of rounded edges but somehow they are very easy to tell apart as are every brand of hyper car on the market. Which is very relevant in this case as in the court Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/14/samsung_lawyer_co...

That’s because the platonic ideal for a tablet is basically a thin plate of glass with rounded corners. Hell, even my kindle basically looks like this. My TV looks like this except for the rounded corners (which it doesn’t need because it’s not intended to be held).

Really or is that just what you’re used to? Many people buy cases with corners that protrude thus protecting those flat panels from drops. If anything that seems closer to an ideal design, let alone looking at the ergonomics of how to hold a tablet.

IMO, these designs seem geared to upselling cases rather than anything approaching an ideal.

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

#245

Post by jpambrun »

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?

It's probably illegal in most jurisdiction. However, they have lost the case with Sonos and it's more economical/sensical for them to wait for the unlikely event of a class action lawsuit and pay in the more unlikely event of a loss.

In other words, for google to pay damage to Sonos or consumer before having lost to consumer is non-sensical.

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

#246

Post by spywaregorilla »

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?

Huh, I had noticed that my sonos setup did that and wondered why other systems hadn't gotten around to it.

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

#247

Post by simplestats »

VikingCoder wrote: post #165
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…

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.

I dealt with a manufacturing patent where you had to align certain parts off-center, because lining them up was patented. Of course it didn't really matter how you did it. Hence a subsequent patent was eventually actually awarded to someone else to manufacture them off-center. Which was far worse if you think about it. The first patent claimed a unique point. The next one claimed the entire three-dimensional volume of possible alternatives--minus that unique point.

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

#248

Post by rlpb »

nybble41 wrote: post #172
rlpb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cons…

> ...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.

It's fine to arrange that if that's what both parties want. My argument is simply about the terminology here. If it happens then it's not a sale of goods and the "buyer" doesn't own the goods, either. That's not what "sell" means in the context of goods. It's also not what "own" means.

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

#249

Post by nathanyz »

simplestats wrote: post #219
nathanyz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of things once explained seem obvious, but clearly weren't or they would have existed before. I like to explain it as similar to wheels being circles. Of course that is obvious once you see a circle shaped wheel, but the insight to do that in the first place is the novelty element. Similar advances are happening in every little niche industry and novelty implies non-obvious.

This is certainly the ideal scenario. But typically, they didn't exist before because they are incremental improvements based on things which didn't exist before and use technology which didn't exist before. The claim that they are obvious is based on the fact that anyone who is involved in the production of those prior incremental steps can see what can be done as the next increment. People are working on producing…

The difficulty is that it is really hard to claim something as obvious/non-obvious once you know about it. Basically can't determine if it is something that was incremental based on progress -or- if it just seems like that now that you know about it in hindsight.

Agree with your point though, and it may just be one of those impossible questions which is why the patent office struggles with how to make these decisions.

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

#250

Post by jimkri »

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-…

One of the products on that page is already discontinued: Google Music.

I was so bummed when that happened, I loved being able to upload my own music and have Google music update the metadata and allow me to bring it everywhere. Kind of a data hoarder

Post reply on HN