251–260 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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-…
> the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well I strongly disagree with this. You don't own your speakers which are completely dependent on manufacturer which can brick them permanently on a whim. Fuck that and fuck Sonos. That is not a definition of 'doing audio well in 21st century' in any meaningful sense. As for audio quality, there are companies making better sounding products that allow you to…
Like I said, a 21st century company, with bad things that implies as well as the good things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd take a NAD amp over anything that Sonos sells any day of the week, thanks.
and you can have my NAD amp over my dead body, though when I am dead, you can get it with a Slim Devices/Logitech Duet Receiver (Burr/Brown 24 bit DAC), which I'll also take over the current Sonos offerings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, I’d rather buy (and intend to) from Sonos versus Google considering Google’s product track record (killing everything in short order). Using patents to defend yourself from a Big Tech company is the unfortunate reality.
Just a heads up, Sonos was going to brick working devices to convince people to upgrade but public uproar convinced them not to. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/5/21166777/sonos-ending-recy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
LG Prada KE850 rounded corners, capacitive screen, colored icons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdt2wYAB1jY
I don't think there has been prior art, once you consider all the irrelevant details. There very likely isn't, because if there was, Samsung would have used it.
Infringing on patents need not involve "copying" or "stolen technology", and shitty outlets like Inc. know their framing is BS.
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…
Could you please point to me where you see the ITC (International Trade Commission) that you call as "court" agreeing to the specific paragraph that you posted? I am not arguing with you, just want to know this better myself.
Disc: Googler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The ability to throw a case on it is a feature, not a misdesign. I don’t want a bulky tablet to protect the corners. I’ll put a case on it for that. I happen to not want that so I have a very minimal case on all my devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In the scenario I described there was a sale of goods and the buyer does own them. The seller certainly doesn't retain ownership; they might be able to sue over breach of contract if you modified the good and refused to follow through with the agreed penalty, but they couldn't reasonably sue you merely for modifying the good without their permission as it doesn't belong to them. It's no different than if you already owned something (so no question about sale/ownership) and then agreed in a contract to pay some amount if you modified it in exchange for some form of consideration. Insurance contracts, for example, usually have terms like this: unapproved DIY modifications to your vehicle can cost you your coverage without entitling you to a refund of your premiums, which amounts to a penalty, and yet it remains your vehicle despite those terms. You can always agree not to do something you otherwise have the right to do as part of a contract. It doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the sale.