Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#21

Post by falcolas »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #10
threesquared wrote: post #5

> including synchronizing audio across groups of speakers, adjusting the group volume, and setting up devices on a local wireless network. I'm sorry but patents like this shouldn't really be enforceable, its completely anti-competitive.

I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…

> because Sonos got there first

Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want.

> Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers

They absolutely can, they just have to pay for the right.

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#22

Post by bluejekyll »

falcolas wrote: post #21
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

Ok. But prior art should blast this out of the water, at least IMO. In 2000 I had friends in college running Linux for streaming music to speakers. I was impressed at the time because this wasn’t someone in the CS department.

So if anything I feel like it could be argued that they didn’t invent anything new, only packaged it into a new form factor.

Sonos formed in 2002, first demos were 2004, according to the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonos

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#23

Post by GuB-42 »

falcolas wrote: post #21
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

> Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want.

Ideas have very little value. What is valuable is the implementation of it. And that's what patents protect.

I'm sure that thousands, if not millions of people thought about connected speakers. Sonos build an enclosure and a PCB, specified the protocols to be used, designed the software that goes with it, etc... patenting the technical innovations they spend money on developing along the way. That's what Sonos brought to the table, not the idea of connected speakers.

If Google decided to redevelop things from scratch based on that idea, as they claimed, they owe nothing to Sonos. Sure, they have the advantage of knowing that it is a good idea, but Sonos got a head start, that's fair. What Sonos complains about is that Google didn't develop their solution from scratch and copied more than the general idea.

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#24

Post by seattle_spring »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #15

Here’s the actual complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/442039322/Sonos-ITC-Complain... I haven’t read through the whole thing, but I did browse through one of the allegedly infringed patents (“method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system”) and it’s every bit as broad as you’d expect: https://patentswarm.com/patents/US8588949B2

Didn't Squeezebox implement that feature years before Sonos was even a thing?

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#25

Post by jakelazaroff »

GuB-42 wrote: post #23
falcolas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

> Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. Ideas have very little value. What is valuable is the implementation of it. And that's what patents protect. I'm sure that tho…

> I'm sure that thousands, if not millions of people thought about connected speakers. Sonos build an enclosure and a PCB, specified the protocols to be used, designed the software that goes with it, etc... patenting the technical innovations they spend money on developing along the way. That's what Sonos brought to the table, not the idea of connected speakers.

That's not what Sonos patented, though. Take a look at their "method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system." [1] There's nothing about hardware, protocols, algorithms, etc. It's basically a patent on a UI that lets you make a group of players on a network, and if you change the volume for one player the rest of them also change.

[1] https://patentswarm.com/patents/US8588949B2

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#26

Post by bagacrap »

falcolas wrote: post #21
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

Can I then file patents for 'internet connected X', for all X, and expect every tech company who figures out how to actually build the thing to pay me royalties? Sonos had a first movers advantage which they exploited with an over priced product. Now they're having trouble competing so they turn to the courts instead of making a better product. I have to say that taking Google to court seems like an all or nothing strat, given the resources their opponents bring to the table; a move that only makes sense when you run out of other options. I'd short Sonos.

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#27

Post by loco5niner »

falcolas wrote: post #21
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until we see Sonos' complaint, but if the main thrust of it is that Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers because Sonos got there first, then I'm not a buyer. Sonos speakers are extremely pricey for what they are. A world in which they are the only option is a worse one than one in which there is competition, even if that means Sonos sh…

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

True, but internet connected speakers isn't exactly a novel concept. Are we just going to give patents out to everyone to be the first person to internet-connect X for all values of X?

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#28

Post by dllthomas »

GuB-42 wrote: post #23
falcolas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because Sonos got there first Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. > Google, Apple, and Amazon should not be able to make internet connected speakers They absolute…

> Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. Ideas have very little value. What is valuable is the implementation of it. And that's what patents protect. I'm sure that tho…

> If Google decided to redevelop things from scratch based on that idea, as they claimed, they owe nothing to Sonos.

That's not how patents work. If Google had never heard of Sonos and independently developed a connected speaker, and the result was too similar to what the patent covers, then Google would owe Sonos. Less than if the infringement were willful, but it's still infringement per the law.

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#29

Post by mercutio2 »

DHPersonal wrote: post #12
nwsm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title of the html page has a couple extra words. Maybe Verge tried to change the title to remove `Google lawsuit` and forgot the apostrophe. >Sonos’ Google lawsuit says what every smaller tech company was thinking: working with big tech sucks - The Verge

It’s possessive: “Sonos’ lawsuit against Google.”

It’s possessive, but represents a grey zone in how apostrophes work in modern English.

A trailing apostrophe is for a possessive following a plural “s”. But “Sonos” is just a made up name, meant to evoke the Latin “sonus” I’d guess. Regardless, it’s a singular name, the fact that it has a trailing “s” doesn’t mean it’s plural.

So in this argument, a possessive should be spelled “Sonos’s”.

BUT! There’s a longstanding (but eroding) tradition that there’s a specific exception for classical or biblical names that end in an s. Is Sonos a classical or biblical name? I don’t think so, but I suppose people could decide it ought to be treated like one.

Finally, recent advice on this is to let pronunciation guide the presence of a final “s”. So if you pronounce Sonos’ as “soh-nohs” and not “soh-noh-ses”, the APA thinks Sonos’ is reasonable [0].

[0] https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessiv...

Re: Sonos: Working with big tech sucks

#30

Post by mdorazio »

eightysixfour wrote: post #18
mdorazio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things strike me as quite trivial and I'm fairly confident we could probably find pre-Sonos prior art for all of them.

Same as how people were quite certain they could find prior art for one-click checkout?

Have you looked at the patents in question? Here they are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. 1,2,4, and 5 are absurdly broad, obvious, almost certainly were preceded by basic networking functions, and should not have been granted in the first place. The third is possibly novel so I'll grant them that. This whole case is a great example of the ridiculousness of software patents in the modern USPTO system.

[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en

[2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en

[3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en

[4] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en

[5] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en

Post reply on HN