Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by halpert » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 11:47 PM UTC

tssva wrote: post #279

halpert wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The claims almost all say "via the user interface." (Not a user interface btw) The figures also contain detailed descriptions of the user interface. I know it's a trope that software patents are bad, but a generally broad patent of "controller for controlling" could have been challenged. The user interface was the main issue with this.

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

#282

Post by dpark » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 12:21 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #272

dpark wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

Maybe? I’ve never bought a tablet that I didn’t intend to go in a bag, so I want a cover anyway. I don’t see that integrated bumpers do much for me.

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

#283

Post by nathanyz » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 1:14 AM UTC

simplestats wrote: post #261

nathanyz wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

It is a hard idea to correlate since you can't unwind knowledge. I think your idea around giving a person X time to come up with solution could work if the patent office could afford that.

Maybe take a 3rd party who is unaware of the patent/novel idea and then asking them how to solve for some generalized version of the problem that a patent states it is solving and see what happens.

Similar to black boxing that companies will do with tech that may have been shared under restricted terms.

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

#284

Post by mbreese » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 1:25 AM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #277

mbreese wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, Google has already infringed on the devices sold. So, yes they are liable for that.

For new devices, Google wouldn’t need to include the same functionality — new customers won’t be expecting the functionality.

What I’m curious about is why they removed the functionality from existing devices. That just opens them up to another lawsuit, this time from customers (for bait and switch). I’m sympathetic… they are in a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. And this is probably the cheapest way out.

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

#285

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 1:50 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #282

Retric wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

Maybe? I’ve never bought a tablet that I didn’t intend to go in a bag, so I want a cover anyway. I don’t see that integrated bumpers do much for me.

I am confused, what thin and light protection case can you get other than just bumpers? And what is it protecting your iPad inside a bag from?

I am not saying your wrong, it’s just I don’t understand your point.

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

#286

Post by dpark » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:23 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #285

dpark wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? I’ve never bought a tablet that I didn’t intend to go in a bag, so I want a cover anyway. I don’t see that integrated bumpers do much for me.

I am confused, what thin and light protection case can you get other than just bumpers? And what is it protecting your iPad inside a bag from? I am not saying your wrong, it’s just I don’t understand your point.

My current iPad cover is thin plastic with a “smart cover”. It’s not a bumper. It’s also certainly heavier than 10 grams but still quite light.

It protects from scratches and very light falls, such as being bumped off a table. A drop from chest height would be iffy.

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

#287

Post by MereInterest » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #277

mbreese wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, in the same way that the manufacturer of a physical product may be sued for damages. Suppose I buy a pair of scissors. Fancy new scissors, with some whiz-bang feature that makes them really cool scissors that can cut through anything. Now, the manufacturer is sued for violating a patent, and loses the case. The manufacturer may end up paying a fine to the patent holder. The manufacturer may no longer be allowed to sell those scissors, or to sell repair kits for those scissors. But the manufacturer may not break into my house, take the scissors out of my drawer, and modify them. I've bought them, and the manufacturer no longer has any right to change them.

The problem isn't just that Google removed a feature from an existing product. The problem is also that Google has the ability to do so in the first place.

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

#288

Post by fomine3 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:49 AM UTC

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.

VP9/AV1 patent would be good example.

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

#289

Post by charcircuit » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #89

charcircuit wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) Sure, but you can't change it to do something that violates someone's patent without licensing it.

I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.

My information comes from asking someone whose company deals with helping people get software patents if it's okay to violate software patents in private.

Now obviously in reality catching you doing this and going after you as a random person is probably not worth it.

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

#290

Post by MereInterest » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 3:05 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #92

MereInterest wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.

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

Google is attempting to mitigate one wrong by performing another. Google is not allowed to implement feature covered by another company's patent. Google is also not allowed to sell a product advertised as having a specific feature and then later remove that feature. The two are independent.

Having lost the lawsuit, Google's proposed remedy is to "undo" the patent infringement by removing the patented feature. This may reduce the harm to Sonos, but actively harms people who purchased the devices.