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

41–50 of 54 posts

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

#41

Post by nikanj »

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.

But the patents are often not on the technical implementation nitty-gritty, but on the very general idea of "Two speakers that play the same song in sync".

The latter ("concept patents") just stifle innovation.

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

#42

Post by malfist »

infecto wrote: post #39
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.

They treat their hardware like it's a phone or computer, something to upgrade every year or two and old versions discarded. They have no problem bricking it in a couple of years and expect you to buy a newer version. Perfectly functional hardware.

This last round of bricking was to bring about a faster CPU in the speakers, as if that matters. Didn't add features, just faster CPU.

Their support is pretty atrocious. They will always blame your router for not handling "point to point internal networking" correctly, as if that's a real possibility. They tell you you have to make one of their speakers your router and your current router needs to be put in AP mode.

Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers.

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

#43

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

>To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure.

Startups aren't trying to compete with large companies, they're trying to get bought up by them. If your goal is to compete, patents are a nice-to-have, but you can still compete on being more flexible than a giant lumbering tech company. The whole mythology of "disruption" depends on it, because there are natural diseconomies of scale. When you get big, you get stupid.

If your goal is acquisition, however, then patents are entirely necessary, because otherwise - what are tech companies buying?

In this case, Google should be allowed to clone the shit out of Sonos, and Sonos should have legally mandated access to the YouTube Music accounts of any user who consents to Sonos products accessing their data. Interoperability is far more important to startups that are actually trying to remain independent rather than providing a nice juicy VC exit. With the current state of "IP"[0], any startup trying to build an interoperable product is at the mercy of their competitors who can kill the API keys of products they are cloning.

I'd rather live in the world where big tech is at constant risk of being scraped to death than the world where the only thing startups can bring to the table are poorly-worded and overbroad patents that big tech can use to kill other startups.

[0] Read: laws that let you opt out of having competitors. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) falls under this umbrella.

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

#44

Post by ilyt »

malfist wrote: post #42
infecto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They treat their hardware like it's a phone or computer, something to upgrade every year or two and old versions discarded. They have no problem bricking it in a couple of years and expect you to buy a newer version. Perfectly functional hardware. This last round of bricking was to bring about a faster CPU in the speakers, as if that matters. Didn't add features, just faster CPU. Their support is pretty atrocious. Th…

> Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers.

They're streaming sound, not high bitrate video.

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

#45

Post by ilyt »

echelon wrote: post #12
jdhendrickson wrote: post #8

I 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.

Like small companies patent trolling bigger ones as their entire business model.

Patents as a whole is entirely negative force. The original thought to make the inventor be able to profit off the invention is long gone. Near every single one is corporate backed and used to stem the competition

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

#46

Post by ilyt »

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…

> To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure.

They ain't doing it now either.

I think more useful model might be shortening it (5 years for anything but medical and such ought to be enough to monetize most) and enforcing profit share into patent law itself.

say 20% of the revenue on the product divided to the owners of patent used (excluding subsidiares and other related entities of company using patent).

Then the original "inventor" (as joke as it is in software...) gets not only the money but also good profit margin advantage over big corp to market

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

#47

Post by ilyt »

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.

Yeah entire week of dev time to figure out /s

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

#48

Post by malfist »

ilyt wrote: post #44
malfist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They treat their hardware like it's a phone or computer, something to upgrade every year or two and old versions discarded. They have no problem bricking it in a couple of years and expect you to buy a newer version. Perfectly functional hardware. This last round of bricking was to bring about a faster CPU in the speakers, as if that matters. Didn't add features, just faster CPU. Their support is pretty atrocious. Th…

> Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers. They're streaming sound, not high bitrate video.

Oh I completely agree that's what they should be doing. But support wants you to put your router as an access point behind a sonos speaker, meaning the sonos speaker has to be capable of handing all your internet traffic as well as play music.

Really a stupid design choice.

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

#49

Post by seanhunter »

infecto wrote: post #39
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.

They broke literally all my hardware with an upgrade path. I had 6 or so sonos speakers which are now just pretty white bricks. Theoretically some of them will be usable if I update the app to the new sonos app but when I try that it (firstly) says some of them aren't compatible with the new app and (secondly) just plain doesn't find any of the others. And yes I have tried connecting them directly so I have a hub with just my wifi router and the sonos device connected via ethernet and I'm standing right next to it with my phone showing 5 bars of wifi strength and it can't find the speaker.
Post reply on HN