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

201–210 of 302 posts

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

#201

Post by zip1234 »

alok-g wrote: post #96
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?

The system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved. In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.

Yes--basically a tech like Bluetooth will come out and then a bunch of dumb patents will come out for 'controlling a microwave with bluetooth' and 'controlling refrigerator with bluetooth' and the patent will be approved even though they are completely obvious and the exact same thing.

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

#202

Post by pmontra »

dmitriid wrote: post #156
Retric wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like a sports car isn’t a specific design. Compare a Bugatti Veyron with a 911 Turbo. They both have lot’s of rounded edges but somehow they are very easy to tell apart as are every brand of hyper car on the market. This wasn’t two companies that happened to come up with the same design, this was just blatant copying of pointless aesthetic details, which is illegal.

> They both have lot’s of rounded edges but somehow they are very easy to tell apart as are every brand of hyper car on the market. Which is very relevant in this case as in the court Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/14/samsung_lawyer_co...

I don't want to get into this old issue but I just noticed that all my notebooks are rectangular with sharp corners regardless of the manufacturer. I mean paper notebooks. It would be silly to patent and sue for that and with the hindsight of 11+ years that was a silly design patent to award. My Samsung from 2019 has rounded corners. I can't even remember how it ended except that some lawyers made a zillion of money out of it.

Whether it's appropriate to use sharp or rounder corners for a given tool is common knowledge dating back thousands of years. In this case it's based on grip, handling, taking it out of a pocket, not piercing that pocket, coexisting with other items in bag, etc.

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

#203

Post by utopcell »

I find it really sad that Sonos resorted to this. In my mind, this means it is struggling to find it's place in a market that now includes all the big names.

I own a Sonos play:5, a couple Nest Hubs and some Amazon echoes, and even to this day, in terms of sound quality, nothing beats the play:5.

I wonder if Sonos has gone after Apple as well for this trivial patent.

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

#204

Post by dpark »

nathanyz wrote: post #183
esens wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context. Thus defining "non-obvi…

A lot of things once explained seem obvious, but clearly weren't or they would have existed before. I like to explain it as similar to wheels being circles. Of course that is obvious once you see a circle shaped wheel, but the insight to do that in the first place is the novelty element. Similar advances are happening in every little niche industry and novelty implies non-obvious.

The problem is that things that are already well known and obvious are being granted patents because “but with software” gets tacked onto the end.

“Control a group of speakers” - not patentable

“Control a group of speakers, but with software” - patentable

Maybe there’s some really interesting way Sonos controls speakers with software that should be patentable. But “with software” is not novel on its own.

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

#205

Post by dpark »

jjoonathan wrote: post #115
alok-g wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved. In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.

If the USPTO gets to keep any part of the fees it charges, it is heavily incentivized to allow silly patents through the "non-obvious" gate. Defining "non-obvious" might be tricky, but fixing the incentives would be comparatively straightforward if they are half as broken as they appear to be.

I’m pretty sure the USPTO is not a money making venture. It’s chronically understaffed and ill equipped to deal with the volume of bullshit it receives.

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

#206

Post by emj »

nathanyz wrote: post #183
esens wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context. Thus defining "non-obvi…

A lot of things once explained seem obvious, but clearly weren't or they would have existed before. I like to explain it as similar to wheels being circles. Of course that is obvious once you see a circle shaped wheel, but the insight to do that in the first place is the novelty element. Similar advances are happening in every little niche industry and novelty implies non-obvious.

It's about costs, networked speakers for pro-consumers was never a thing it was just too expensive. Until it wasn't and then you obviously had to controll them together.

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

#207

Post by bsedlm »

mindcrime wrote: post #124
josephcsible wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.

Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights. Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights. There are other ways…

> There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.

Yes, but they're more difficult and costly; a blackbox is cheap, easy, and when done a certain way, it will increase profits. Why wouldn't companies do this? (I wish I could answer this)

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

#208

Post by jollybean »

SSLy wrote: post #170
boringg wrote: post #104

Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…

Google participated in industrial espionage while having talks with Sonos, then implemented what they've learned in their products. That's patents working as designed. Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos' speakers, the latter company gave the search giant an inside look at its technology. At the time, it didn't seem like a big deal. Google wasn't maki…

What part of 'changing the volume on all speakers at once' is 'industrial espionage'?

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

#209

Post by monocasa »

SSLy wrote: post #170
boringg wrote: post #104

Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…

Google participated in industrial espionage while having talks with Sonos, then implemented what they've learned in their products. That's patents working as designed. Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos' speakers, the latter company gave the search giant an inside look at its technology. At the time, it didn't seem like a big deal. Google wasn't maki…

A court hasn't seen any of this yet. It was an ITC commission which takes claims of these types at face value with the assumption that disputes can hit the court system.

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

#210

Post by throwaway2331 »

s17n wrote: post #176

What's really frustrating about this situation for me is that Google has given up on audio (discontinued Chromecast Audio, no replacement for Home Max) but as a result of this bullshit, I also can't use my Google products with Sonos, the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well. Instead, Google's strategy is to partner with a bunch of legacy audio companies ( https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-…

I'm surprised anyone still uses Chromecast.

Too many panicked monkey-beating sessions, where I accidentally clicked the "cast" button on a video has lead me to throw mine out (a gift).

I'd rather just run a HDMI/VGA cable into a TV.

Post reply on HN