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

271–280 of 302 posts

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

#271

Post by dpark »

Retric wrote: post #268
dpark wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

Sure. My case is not larger or heavier than the protection that others might want, though. My kid’s iPad from school is bulky and heavy from the case. Personal iPads in my house are barely heavier than without the cases.

Bezels are wide to accommodate hands, though, not cases. Good cases can obscure nearly none of the bezel.

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

#272

Post by Retric »

dpark wrote: post #271
Retric wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

Sure. My case is not larger or heavier than the protection that others might want, though. My kid’s iPad from school is bulky and heavy from the case. Personal iPads in my house are barely heavier than without the cases. Bezels are wide to accommodate hands, though, not cases. Good cases can obscure nearly none of the bezel.

My case is not larger or heavier than the protection others might want.

An integrated 5-10 grams on a 487 gram iPad could give you a lot of protection. That’s about the point where they should survive a 4 foot drop onto wood/tile/concrete from any angle. I am not saying that’s going to prevent everyone from buying a case, but if close to 80% of the market is buying a case perhaps they could simply make something people would be less concerned about.

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

#273

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

s17n wrote: post #255
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NAD already basically dropped Chromecast support, confirming the suspicion that buying their products would have been a bad idea for me. And any company whose business strategy is to sell to users of the Logitech Duet is going to go bankrupt.

NAD & Chromecast? My NAD amplifier is about 22 years old. It doesn't know anything about networking, streaming or chrome. It's an amplifier.

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

#274

Post by VikingCoder »

simplestats wrote: post #247
VikingCoder wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I always want people to patent TERRIBLE ideas, to prevent game companies from implementing them.

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

#275

Post by tinus_hn »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #127
CodesInChaos wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't that a design patent, which is closer to a trademark than an actual patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Well it obviously didn't hold up. IMO Apple had a copyright, maybe, it shouldn't have been patentable though. Design != technology so shouldn't be patentable.

That’s why it’s a design patent, which is completely different concept from an invention patent.

For one, it lasts forever.

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

#276

Post by tinus_hn »

mdoms wrote: post #216
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?

Look, everyone on this website is going to agree with you that the patents are pretty silly. But that doesn't change the two central facts of the article, 1. Sonos holds such patents 2. Google (the trillion dollar company) is actively making its products worse for users instead of licensing said patents. These are not free products like GMail, these are products that people have paid for, and these are not trivial fe…

The time to stop discussing the broken patent system is when it is no longer broken. That time is not now.

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

#277

Post by tinus_hn »

mbreese wrote: post #99
duxup wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.

Not intentionally, but they did sell something with a feature, only to remove that feature later. The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.

In reality, Sonos is not even required to license the ‘technology’ and should they decide to do so, they can ask whatever price they want. Would you suggest there is some legal way to make Google liable for that?

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

#278

Post by tssva »

Bud wrote: post #240
tssva wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The setup technique that is covered by one of the parents is locating the device via a wireless signal outside of the wifi network, communicating the correct wifi network information to the device and then verifying that the device has properly connected to the wifi network. This is the standard iot device setup process using Bluetooth to locate and configure devices. The patent is just on this process but on a speaker versus some other type of iot device.

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

#279

Post by tssva »

halpert wrote: post #218
tssva wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. The patent doesn't cover any specific UI. Part of what the patent covers is a controller on a network presenting a UI to control volume on a group of speakers not a specific implementation of the UI.

There were a number of patents in question. I'm specifically referring to this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en Here is the abstract, you can see that it clearly is about the interface of creating and controlling the play group: > A multimedia controller including a processor, the controller configured to: provide a user interface for a player group, wherein the player group includes a plurality…

You need to read the claims in the patent. That is what the patent actually covers. The claims include the controller presenting a UI but that is not the only claim in the patent. Besides that the abstract also supports the point of my post and not your original. You stated that the patent covers a particular presentation of a UI for doing so. It does not. It just states that a UI is presented and not the form of the UI which is exactly what I stated in my comment.

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

#280

Post by Jensson »

rasz wrote: post #252
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…

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...

Did Google use that patent offensively? Google takes on a lot of patents, but they don't attack people with the patents, that was the statement.
Post reply on HN