3 ms·
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
by schnable 7y ago
Why? The patent would be for specific implementations to achieve these features. They aren't trivial.
- jessaustin 7y agoLet's not assume this. Patents should be written that way, but many of them are not.
- mdorazio 7y agoThese 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 agoSame as how people were quite certain they could find prior art for one-click checkout?
- pjc50 7y agoThe 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 agoHave 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