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

31–40 of 54 posts

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

#31

Post by realusername »

rjst01 wrote: post #30
jsnell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Every software patent is like this, I've never seen anything relevant yet that I can't come up myself thinking about domain. They are very vague and useless on purpose.

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

#33

Post by fidotron »

fsh wrote: post #18
echelon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.

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

#34

Post by cr3ative »

fidotron wrote: post #33
fsh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.

It might not be trivial to achieve technically, but at the point you have multiple speakers dotted around a multi-room space, making them all play the same thing in sync is a fairly obvious idea, which I think is more what is being argued here.

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

#35

Post by NotYourLawyer »

cr3ative wrote: post #34
fidotron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.

It might not be trivial to achieve technically, but at the point you have multiple speakers dotted around a multi-room space, making them all play the same thing in sync is a fairly obvious idea, which I think is more what is being argued here.

Depends how broadly it’s claimed. A detailed claim that gets into the technical specifics of how this is implemented might well be nonobvious. A broad claim that covers all possible ways of synchronizing audio is a tougher sell.

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

#36

Post by havnagiggle »

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.

It also materially changed the experience of Google's products for the worse. I am curious how that might have impacted their bottom line (as small as home devices are to their business).

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

#37

Post by criddell »

oliwarner wrote: post #32
jdhendrickson wrote: post #8

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

And start selling the Chromecast Audio again.

Is Sonos the reason why they discontinued it?

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

#38

Post by adhesive_wombat »

fidotron wrote: post #33
fsh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.

Then you patent the specific method, not just the idea of "make speakers play at the same time, but with a computer"

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

#39

Post by infecto »

seanhunter wrote: post #11

AS someone who was an early fan of Sonos I really hate what they have become and am delighted this got tossed.

I know they made some funky decision in recent history. What are the points that you dislike about them? Curious as someone who is always on the fence about their products but still use them.

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

#40

Post by plagiarist »

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…

That should not be patentable.
Post reply on HN