AS someone who was an early fan of Sonos I really hate what they have become and am delighted this got tossed.
Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#12I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.
This sucks for Sonos.
Google can clone the Sonos hardware and kick Sonos off of YouTube Music. Which is exactly what they tried doing before.
Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. The world shouldn't revolve around five tech giants.
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#13Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted
To protect against trolls, sure.
To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure.
In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music.
I'm tired of Google, Apple, and Meta winning by default. They have unlimited resources to clone startups' entire products.
Big companies should be way more vulnerable to disruption.
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#14I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.
This sucks for Sonos. Google can clone the Sonos hardware and kick Sonos off of YouTube Music. Which is exactly what they tried doing before. Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. The world shouldn't revolve around five tech giants.
> Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market.
Which would be great, except as the ruling states, Sonos didn't introduce the feature in the market until 5 years after Google did:
> The essence of this order is that the patents issued after an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay of over thirteen years by the patent holder, Sonos, Inc. Sonos filed the provisional application from which the patents in suit claim priority in 2006...Google then began introducing its own products that practiced the invention in 2015. Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line).
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#15For those who'd like to read the official document(s), if I understand correctly, the order can be found here, at the bottom: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-s....
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#16Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted
To protect against trolls, sure. To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure. In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music. I'm tired of Google, Apple, and Meta winning by default. They have unlimited resources to clone startups' entire products. Big companies should be wa…
You have to consider the fact that workarounds are dime a dozen.
In any case, startups aren't exactly in a position to gamble away their endowment in a court battle, which can trivially get stretched out by their megacorp opponents until they run out of cash.
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#17>A California federal judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict for wireless-audio company Sonos (SONO.O) against rival Google (GOOGL.O) after finding that the Sonos patents at the heart of the case were unenforceable. I am used to seeing statements that these legal cases cost $$$$ in legal fees, so I am curious what is likely to have been the spend on either side of the case. A $32.5 million verdict is likely sig…
In case it wasn't clear - a jury awarded Sonos $32.5 million, but the judge just threw that out. Sonos gets nothing.
It's quite possible that both sides spent far more than $32.5 million on lawyers, but it made sense to fight.
Sonos, because they wanted to sue others and not just Google.
Google, because they didn't want to set a precedent that they'd give in when they hadn't actually infringed on anything.
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#18Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted
To protect against trolls, sure. To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure. In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music. I'm tired of Google, Apple, and Meta winning by default. They have unlimited resources to clone startups' entire products. Big companies should be wa…
I don't see how patents on trivial stuff like synchronized playback are supposed to help startups. The big corporations are sitting on enormous piles of those which makes entering their markets extremely risky.
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#19Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted
any interest in going as far as changing that article of the constitution?
I feel it is almost unworkable enough
I don’t feel as if enough important people care enough the same way as irrelevant people would care
relevant because the only populist legislative changes that occur are the ones that coincidentally match what the elite class was already interested in
Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sucks for Sonos. Google can clone the Sonos hardware and kick Sonos off of YouTube Music. Which is exactly what they tried doing before. Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. The world shouldn't revolve around five tech giants.
> Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. Which would be great, except as the ruling states, Sonos didn't introduce the feature in the market until 5 years after Google did: > The essence of this order is that the patents issued after an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay of over thirteen years by the patent holder, Sonos, Inc. Sonos filed the provisional application f…
>Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line).
What was the feature that Sonos introduced in 2020 that was being fought over?