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

261–270 of 302 posts

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

#261

Post by simplestats »

nathanyz wrote: post #249
simplestats wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm having trouble thinking of examples of what you mean. It's not like people invent new branches of math to make a patent like with revolutionary ideas in physics. Do I get 6-12 months (or even more) working on the same problem and subject to the same constraints and available technologies the inventor had? A really "prophetic" idea can probably be identified as such because it's far too ahead of its time to get patented or used anyway.

But when it comes to money-making patents, I think of technological development as an optimization process where everyone has the same objectives and a pretty limited search area at each point in time (available technologies you can use, textbook knowledge you can draw on). I'd generally expect any smart and dedicated person working on the problem to find the next best next steps sooner or later (certainly far less than 20 years).

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

#262

Post by hardolaf »

dpark wrote: post #205
jjoonathan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the USPTO gets to keep any part of the fees it charges, it is heavily incentivized to allow silly patents through the "non-obvious" gate. Defining "non-obvious" might be tricky, but fixing the incentives would be comparatively straightforward if they are half as broken as they appear to be.

I’m pretty sure the USPTO is not a money making venture. It’s chronically understaffed and ill equipped to deal with the volume of bullshit it receives.

USPTO is mostly self-funded. If they collect fewer fees, then their budget gets slashed. This model was introduced under Reagan.

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

#263

Post by zaarn »

mattmcknight wrote: post #60
zaarn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not being forced to disable this feature, Google decided to. They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature like they did, after all.

> They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature That's an assumption. You don't know how much Sonos was asking. In addition, companies can choose to not license a patent to their competitors.

No that's not the problem. Google already implemented the feature and made money of it. They do owe royalties to Sonos.

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

#264

Post by dmitriid »

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).

> That’s because the platonic ideal for a tablet is basically a thin plate of glass with rounded corners.

Is it? What about non-rounded corners?

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

#265

Post by dpark »

dmitriid wrote: post #264
dpark wrote: post #211

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).

> That’s because the platonic ideal for a tablet is basically a thin plate of glass with rounded corners. Is it? What about non-rounded corners?

Sharp corners are uncomfortable to hold.

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

#266

Post by sulam »

dahfizz wrote: post #140
sulam wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure (dueling IANALs!) you can't. This is why patent licenses are such a key piece of OSS packages that you want companies to be able to use.

Define "use". The GPL explicitly allows internal use / modification of software, for example[1]. It's only when you sell / distribute software that includes OSS components that licenses matter. I can do whatever I want with OSS code and I can modify consumer electronics I've bought any way I want; there is no need to be concerned with licenses and patents. Only if I want to sell my creation do patents matter. [1] htt…

I honestly believe you're wrong here. There's no exclusion for not profiting from your unlicensed use of a patent, you're infringing regardless of how you use it. Whether or not someone will sue you obviously brings into question damages and how they would collect them, but I don't believe infringing behavior is contingent on a monetary exchange.

Here you go, a source:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent_infringement

[...] one commits patent infringement by making, using, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim [...]

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

#267

Post by dreamcompiler »

The main reason I (literally) threw my Nest thermostat in the trash was that Nest (Google) kept installing updates I couldn't veto, and without exception every update made the device worse. I disabled the wifi for a while but of course then I could no longer control the thermostat with my phone, so eventually I just replaced it with a dumb thermostat and I've not bought a Nest product since.

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

#268

Post by Retric »

dpark wrote: post #259
Retric wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s approaching the ideal form. It makes complete sense that a device which is at its core just a screen, trends toward being literally nothing but a screen over time. You see the same with other items, including kindles, but also actual books, newspapers, magazines. These are all 100% content edge to edge with the exception of a margin to grip the thing. In 2nd grade we had individual chalk bo…

A case over a tablet/phone is always significantly larger and heavier than the equivalent protection built into the device because the case needs attachment points and inherent structural rigidity. It’s not about design just physics.

Every version of the current base/mini/pro model iPad actually has quite a wide bezel in part because people lose so much of the front screen to their cases/hands. https://www.apple.com/ipad-10.2/ You simply can’t comfortably cup them the way you can a phone.

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

#269

Post by celtain »

jimkri wrote: post #250
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

You can upload your own music to YouTube music, and the music I had previously uploaded to Google music was migrated over at some point (but I think there were manual steps involved, which may no longer be available).

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

#270

Post by dreamcompiler »

alistairSH wrote: post #167
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, “Fiv…

> there's no additional cost to Opal (no servers to maintain etc) to necessitate a subscription

This is where you might be wrong. I know nothing about the Opal company, but it seems increasingly true that you cannot get VC for a startup without a business model that shows a continuing revenue stream. Business models where the consumer only pays for the product once are dead in the water.

So you may be right that there's no additional cost to Opal, but a subscription might be required by their funders for them to be in business in the first place.

It's still ridiculous and I refuse to buy such products.

Post reply on HN