4 ms·

> including synchronizing audio across groups of speakers, adjusting the group volume, and setting up devices on a local wireless network. I'm sorry but patent

> 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.

schnable 7y ago
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Let's not assume this. Patents should be written that way, but many of them are not.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  These things strike me as quite trivial and I'm fairly confident we could probably find pre-Sonos prior art for all of them.
  - eightysixfour 7y ago
    Same as how people were quite certain they could find prior art for one-click checkout?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The oneclick patent didn't cover an "implementation" in the sense that we'd normally define it, it covered any UI with that same flow.
    - mdorazio 7y ago
      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 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en [3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en [4] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en [5] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
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 shareholders make less money. (FWIW, the request for an injunction on Google selling its own speakers suggests to me that this is the main argument, so I'm already biased against Sonos' position.) Of course, I am not a fan of Google or anyone attempting to force some kind of exclusivity arrangement. That doesn't seem like something that benefits the end-user. We'll have to see whether that is a correct representation of the conversations that they were having.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- falcolas 7y ago
  > 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.
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonos
  - GuB-42 7y ago
    > 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.

schnable 7y ago

Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.

jessaustin 7y ago
Let's not assume this. Patents should be written that way, but many of them are not.
mdorazio 7y ago
These things strike me as quite trivial and I'm fairly confident we could probably find pre-Sonos prior art for all of them.
- eightysixfour 7y ago
  Same as how people were quite certain they could find prior art for one-click checkout?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The oneclick patent didn't cover an "implementation" in the sense that we'd normally define it, it covered any UI with that same flow.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    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 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en [3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en [4] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en [5] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

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 shareholders make less money. (FWIW, the request for an injunction on Google selling its own speakers suggests to me that this is the main argument, so I'm already biased against Sonos' position.) Of course, I am not a fan of Google or anyone attempting to force some kind of exclusivity arrangement. That doesn't seem like something that benefits the end-user. We'll have to see whether that is a correct representation of the conversations that they were having.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
falcolas 7y ago
> 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.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonos
- GuB-42 7y ago
  > 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.