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

Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#21

Post by askvictor »

dmazzoni wrote: post #17
fbdab103 wrote: post #4

>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.

The 32 million is pocket change. What's important is whether the import ban on infringing Google devices is related to this judgement, or if that was a separate case.

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#23

Post by hackernewds »

echelon wrote: post #13
photonbeam wrote: post #2

Patents 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…

> In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music.

how did you come to this outcome, that Google could and would do this?

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#24

Post by jsnell »

Spare_account wrote: post #20
lights0123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Apparently synchronized speakers grouped to zones, with the possibility for the zones to overlap so that one speaker could be in multiple zones rather than just one. To quote the judge:

> Then, in 2019, Sonos filed continuation applications for the patents in suit. To get around the prior art, Sonos sought to patent zone scenes with a new twist: overlap. With overlap, a zone player could be a member of more than one zone scene at the same time

It turns out that what Sonos did was even more scummy than implied by lights0123. In addition to this being something Sonos didn't implement until much later, it was actually Google who first suggested this idea to Sonos.

> This was thirteen years after Sonos filed the provisional application, but also five years after Google had itself disclosed overlapping zone scenes to Sonos, and four years after Google had released products that implemented the feature.

It's interesting to read the comments from half a year ago with this knowledge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36093764

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#25

Post by [deleted] »

askvictor wrote: post #21
dmazzoni wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 32 million is pocket change. What's important is whether the import ban on infringing Google devices is related to this judgement, or if that was a separate case.

[deleted]

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#26

Post by prmoustache »

echelon wrote: post #13
photonbeam wrote: post #2

Patents 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…

What does this patent has to do with Google blocking them from accessing YouTube Music?

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#29

Post by imnotjames »

hackernewds wrote: post #22
jdhendrickson wrote: post #8

I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.

What was the original tech?

The biggest difference I saw because of the Sonos lawsuit was you couldn't change the volume of every device at once.

Re: Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

#30

Post by rjst01 »

jsnell wrote: post #24
Spare_account wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Apparently synchronized speakers grouped to zones, with the possibility for the zones to overlap so that one speaker could be in multiple zones rather than just one. To quote the judge: > Then, in 2019, Sonos filed continuation applications for the patents in suit. To get around the prior art, Sonos sought to patent zone scenes with a new twist: overlap. With overlap, a zone player could be a member of more than one…

Your description got me wondering if Sonos had actually done anything novel so I decided to go and dig up the actual patent. Best I can tell, it's this one:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7571014B1/en

Spoiler, it contains a detailed description of the functionality, complete with UI mockups and flow charts. It does not contain any novel method for keeping audio in sync between rooms, for example.

It is insane to me that this is patentable.

Post reply on HN