14 ms·

The ITC declares Google infringed on audio tech patents held by Sonos [pdf]

suddenexample 5y ago
As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en Playback device - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en Playback device connection - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en I'm a big fan of Sonos products but this ruling won't go through, right? Doesn't this effectively make Sonos the only legal manufacturer of wireless speaker systems? It's not like two speakers individually playing L and R channels is a novel concept... Plus it apparently bans imports on "Google Home smart speakers, Pixel phones and computers, and Google’s Chromecast streaming video device".
- cushychicken 5y ago
  Sonos has worked hard since its founding to quietly amass an impressive stable of streaming audio IP. It's not a matter of "if" anyone is infringing on their IP. It's a matter of "who can they reasonably win a ruling against".
- comprambler 5y ago
  Where is the Logitech/Squeezebox/Slim Devices patent war chest here? They have had volume on multi zone prior to 2012, syncing audio playback devices together, as well as having multichannel audio going to different squeezeboxes. These all seem to have at least prior art behind them and thus are indefensible.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  Is this why it’s seemingly impossible to have synced wireless audio that’s not AirPlay or Sonos?
- sabertoothed 5y ago
  The patent system is so broken.
  - nceqs3 5y ago
    Yes, so broken that the original inventors of a product class had to spend $50 million on litigation in not even a court, but rather a quasi court in DC after a trillion dollar company stole their IP, because it's the last place where patent holders in the US get a reasonably fair shake.
    - cercatrova 5y ago
      Software patents are an anathema on innovation. I'd go so far as to say all corporate patents are a hindrance to innovation. We're not in the days of singular inventors profiting off their inventions, which I'm fine with, as when corporations become patent trolls or create such broad patents like "able to play back on a device," then it gets a little ridiculous.
      - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten years after patents expired they were $250 available worldwide. Today Prusa Research ships more 3D printers in three weeks than Stratasys sold for the first 20 years of their operation. Imagine how much more productive mechanical engineers would have been if they had cheap 3D printers a decade sooner, and what the cumulative follow on effects would have been for the world. And then imagine what the economy would be like if everything moved that fast? It would change the nature of investment from less frequent massive investments to more frequent smaller investments as companies copied each other at will, but the rate of growth would be amazing! Think of how cheap we could make MRI machines and other medical imaging devices if this theory holds for that field. Not to mention the extreme worldwide inequality perpetuated by intellectual property restrictions. How fast would the African continent develop if they were legally allowed to clone and copy the world's best manufacturing equipment and product designs. Intellectual property is a disaster for humankind. So many people believe a fable about IP with no material basis in reality. We're told IP "encourages innovation" even when the actual material function of IP restrictions is to prohibit innovation around any patented idea.
- okwubodu 5y ago
  > Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en Is this why I can’t change the volume on a Google Home speaker group anymore?
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    Behind closed doors, I like to ask CEOs these questions: “What patents are holding you back?” “What would you build right now if there were no restrictions from copyright/patents?” There are some very surprising (caveat: not to most of HN) patents that are holding us back.
  - metadat 5y ago
    I'm with you 100% here. It's unclear how often Googhomes receive updates, but at the beginning in 2019 my 9 Mini's worked great! But now for multiple speakers they are laggy and unreliable, sometimes just ending up in a neverending ding loop. Unfortunate to buy a product such as this and have functionality and experience quality steadily decline thereafter. Initially I was a huge fan and in love with the product. Perhaps I should've known better, since Big-G isn't exactly known for long-term support of anything unless it still makes them torrents of money. Sonos are in a similar boat, buy an older controller and the app will constantly nag you to upgrade, but not allow you to upgrade because the controller is "too old and no longer compatible".
  - awslattery 5y ago
    I don't use speaker groups, but could possibly be related to this issue from Android 12 -- where it seems Google walked back, disabled, or pulled out previously present functionality, possibly related to this litigation: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/201546605?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/201546605?pli=1
  - jetrink 5y ago
    I wonder if any of those cover switching devices. You used to be able to say, "Hey Google, move that to the kitchen," and whatever you were listening to would stop and continue in the kitchen. It still understands the command, but then fails with an error. That feature was something that I used every morning as I moved through the house getting ready for the day. I can't point to a single thing that these devices do better than they did two years ago, but I can list several features that were important to me that are now either broken or missing.
- Closi 5y ago
  > System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en This one in particular seems way too broad. So... they have a patent on the concept of deducting latency from a message to synchronize clocks? (and then sending data with a timestamp for when it will play?)
  - koolba 5y ago
    I wonder if they keep their server times in sync with ntp.
  - yccs27 5y ago
    Interesingly, none of the specific claims referenced in the decision have to do with clock synchronization, they all focus on the act of grouping speakers in some way and controlling them together.
  - laserbeam 5y ago
    Irrespective of the patent details, this is actually a fun and not at all straightforward hardware project to implement. I had a failed attempt at this in uni, and synchronizing audio across multiple computers (rasps) is a really cool challenge.
    - izacus 5y ago
      But did you pay the rent to Sonos while you were doing that project? It's, after all, their intelectual property now.
      - texasbigdata 5y ago
        You don't know the year he/she went to University.
        boondaburrah 5y ago
        you do know that raspis were involved, so it can't be before 2012. However, AirFoil/AirPlay existed before that and could do this.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Hopefully big G won't find a way to weasel out now that they don't have as much executive favor with the US government as they used to. Bear in mind this case is more than just Google using some common patents: Google worked with Sonos on a collaborative project as a way to gain access to internal details of how their technology worked, and then they stole it.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
- nceqs3 5y ago
  Remember the ITC is NOT a court, it's part of the executive branch. Their decisions are appealable to the federal circuit but they are effectively never stayed pending appeal (because there is already an appeals process built into the ITC). There is an interesting counterintuitive game that is played where the defendant tries to get MORE of their products included in the exclusion order to make an appeal easier. Sonos could have requested a general exclusion order which would bar ANY infringing product from entering the US, but they only requested a limited exclusion order against Google Home products. Let the lobbying games begin... I am fairly confident that Biden will not overturn the ITC decision but you never know. Google also counter sued Sonos over Google's patents in multiple jurisdictions and Sonos has made it clear to investors that this is all a fight for a settlement.
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    At some point it becomes worth it to put in the effort to try to get the Sonos patents invalidated, and some of them seem very broad. Hard to believe that some of those things were “invented” only in the last 20 years. Most inventions aren’t patented, so I’d speculate that probably almost all patents could be invalidated by someone dedicated with a team of experts to scour history for prior art.
    - HotHotLava 5y ago
      There was nothing comparable to a modern multiroom smart speaker around in 2001, so they certainly were invented in the last 20 years. Whether that was by Sonos or by someone else, and whether these specific patents should have been granted is another question of course.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        I remember musik in the 1990s at the restaurant I worked at. We had it in the kitchen and a different channel in the seating area. Turn a switch on the wall to change channels, if the kitchen and seating were on the same channel then they had music in sync. Now this was an entirely hardwired system, and there was no remote. I don't know what sonos's patents are for, but the idea was in place and the difference is do it by wireless computer.
- yccs27 5y ago
  Google will probably have to get the patents themselves removed, by proving prior work or such. Those patents are way too broad. I wonder what Bose does, they have their own multiroom system. Do they license the patents from Sonos?
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > Do they license the patents from Sonos? IIRC Some other companies made agreements with Sonos to avoid suites (incl apple i blieve?), but sonos has claimed that google was bullying them over a number of things, including the claim that GAssistant only supports one assistant/wake word at a time, per contract, but alexa does not have this limitation. But thats apparently why the android app is worse, they don't support casting, and they're focusing on the apple/alexa ecosystem (airplay, etc).
    - sho_hn 5y ago
      The major feature the Android app lacks is the "Trueplay" tuning. It relies on a phone to generate and record a sound to map out a room's acoustics, then optimizes the Sonos speaker's output for the room. I've always been wondering if the lack of Trueplay support is due to shortcomings in Android's audio APIs or something like this.
      - kllrnohj 5y ago
        Things like that usually require knowing the hardware characteristics of the device itself as well as some form of calibration range. For iOS Sonos can just buy (or borrow) a couple of iphones every year to generate that data. Doing the same on Android gets a lot harder thanks to the more diverse hardware ecosystem.
- yccs27 5y ago
  The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they can be controlled as a unit when grouped.
  - codys 5y ago
    "Simple Jack panel, but computer controlled" is not novel and should not be patentable.
    - yccs27 5y ago
      Yeah, I'm absolutely not arguing this should be patentable. It seems like they are obvious and marginal (at best) changes to preexisting systems, even if they were the first ones to describe them. Still, the patents are not as boundlessly broad as some commenters here seem to think, for instance they clearly exclude hard-wired multispeaker systems.
  - yccs27 5y ago
    To those downvoting: Am I wrong here? Not defending the patents, I just want people to stop tearing down strawmen instead of the real thing.
    - boondaburrah 5y ago
      This sounds an awful lot like what I've been able to do with digital theatre sound systems for a long time, so I don't think it's novel.
AceJohnny2 5y ago
Is Sonos suing Apple as well? Seems like the tech in dispute is also used by HomePods and AirPlay. I can't quickly find anything about Sonos suing Apple, and in fact Apple was selling Sonos speakers in their stores in 2020 [1]. What is the deal? [1] https://www.imore.com/apple-begins-sell-sonos-speaker-company-accuses-google-and-amazon-patent-theft https://www.imore.com/apple-begins-sell-sonos-speaker-compan...
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Google explicitly partnered with Sonos in a collaborative project to find out how Sonos' tech worked, then copied it. It's plausible that Sonos feels Google explicitly stole from them, and Apple built something else. Or, empowered by a win against Google, they file suit against Apple tomorrow. No reason to be in two high cost lawsuits at the same time.
  - metadat 5y ago
    Any source to back up this claim? This sounds unusually stupid, even for Goggle - because they could've just poached a few engineers and it would be less risky than public, high-profile corporate espionage.
    - rasz 5y ago
      As stupid as this sounds, this is usual Google MO coming all the way from the top with both Sergey Brin and Larry Page involved in person "In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow" https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alphabets-project-loon-balloons/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha... https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/ https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip-case-over-high-altitude-balloons/?slreturn=20210022125647 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      It's a core part of Sonos' complaint, I am sure you could find it in the legal filings, but this article about a preliminary injunction against Google in Germany about the same issue starts with that detail in particular: https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021 https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
akersten 5y ago
Patents are horrible. Can you really look me in the face and tell me that controlling the volume of speakers independently of each other is some kind of special idea - not even a concrete product, but so innovative that the very concept deserves an exclusive license and millions in damages from those that dare implement a common-sense UX control? If you can, let me know where I can sign up for free Sonos products for astroturfing too.
- taurath 5y ago
  It tells people to not bother inventing anything, everything “legally” has already been invented by people with more money and lawyers than you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ra-mos 5y ago
  Yes, because at one point in time that was an innovation. You said it yourself.
  - akersten 5y ago
    Where did I say that was an innovation? And if it was an innovation at some point in time, I insist it was the year stereo was invented and the concept was just as invalid as a patent as it is today. Of course you expect the volume of your Left and Right channel to be controlled by the same volume knob. This patent is like a car manufacturer patenting the idea of controlling all your direction with a single steering wheel, and all the other manufacturers are forced to implement individual steering wheels for each tire. It's just absurd.
    - ra-mos 5y ago
      Your next metaphor is worse. If a steering system wan an invention/innovation than it deserves ip rights. What are you on? Should everything be equally competed in society, even after invention?
DiabloD3 5y ago
I'm not a patent lawyer, but can anyone explain to me how this wasn't already covered by either part of multi-zone systems in the 80s/90s, or part of literally every single room correction tech since the late 90s? Sonos didn't exist when this technology was invented. Edit: Surprised I'm getting downvoted for this. All the patents listed are things multi-zone and room correcting systems already do. Look at technology built by Dirac or Audyssey for latency-correcting multiple clock domains; they already do it. Audyssey, Dirac, and Sonos all started around the same time, around 20 years ago, and all base their technology on the companies and engineers who came before them, and Audyssey and Dirac have solutions that are lightyears ahead of Sonos. How does Sonos have valid patents here when its identical to what two better companies have done at the same time, or worse, what companies before them have already done? Something does not sound right here.
- HotHotLava 5y ago
  I'm also not a patent lawyer, but for example the multi-room volume control patent specifically covers a mesh network of independent playback devices that can be dynamically rearranged into possibly overlapping zones, with the volume controls being on a separate device in the local network. I would be surprised if that already existed in the 90s? I'd actually already be surprised if network-connected speakers were around back then, let alone all the mesh networking stuff.
- vmception 5y ago
  The ITC cant invalidate patents so it was never part of the question ITC can only look at imports and damages - aka lack of profit split - where they were due And they found they were due, given the existence of the patent valid during the time in question Feel free to correct me I’m wrong about the ITC
  - ycIsGarbage 5y ago
    The ITC can definitely adjudicate invalidity.
    - 5y ago
ethernet_cable 5y ago
This is the reason the physical volume buttons on Android 12 on Pixel phones no longer adjust Chromecasted music volume, unless you are in the music app in question. Adjusting Spotify cast on the Google Home used to be so easy... https://www.androidpolice.com/google-had-to-remove-cast-volume-controls-in-android-12-for-legal-reasons/ https://www.androidpolice.com/google-had-to-remove-cast-volu...
- mdoms 5y ago
  > This is the reason the physical volume buttons on Android 12 on Pixel phones no longer adjust Chromecasted music volume, unless you are in the music app in question. Are you f'ing kidding me? This has been driving me nuts, I assumed it was just another stupid Android bug that would eventually be silently patched. It's so annoying how functionality like this can be removed without a peep, at least inform me if you're going to do this. (It's not just Pixel phones, same problem with my Samsung A51 and I just got a brand new Motorola phone with the same problem).
  - nmstoker 5y ago
    Yes, this drove me nuts. And was even more annoying because Google Support were totally unaware and acted like morons - it was about 30 minutes before I realised they had no clue what they were investigating and were just blindly plodding along, at which point I told them I'd give up. Weirdly they spammed me a few more times to try to get me to come back to resolve it (without giving any indication they knew any more).
  - vmception 5y ago
    They could have licensed the patent, I know crazy talk, but we never see what the licensing arrangements would have been
    - contravariant 5y ago
      The patent for what? Connecting a volume button to the volume of something?
    - deleted 5y ago
rektide 5y ago
It's so hard to imagine the entire industry being held hostage like this. My second thought is that this radically enhances the need for good IoT standards. Right now many devices are built to grant Google & Google alone the capability to control & orchestrate. Our devices are all vulnerable to legal attach because Google is the sole arbiter of control over our systems, and no one else has much of a say in how these devices run or operate; their capabilities are not up for general use. By making devices which are more API centric, by having them expose what capabilities they have, in a networked fashion, not solely controlled by Google, there would be the possibility for other folks to step in & try to navigate & make offerings here. The risk to product owners would be diffused, there would be more resilience in what would be possible with devices, rather than this being such a 1 vs 1 battle. Things like group volume control seem like ideal candidates for tech that even a bone-headed laymen could implement in a couple lines of code, if specifications like the upcoming Matter IoT specifications were available & in use. Some of the capabilities covered by these patents may need to be baked somewhat closer to the firmware. But for many of them, it feels like the rigid, fixed, top-down control system we've relied on is an epic legal vulnerability, one Sonos is driving a mac truck through. Letting our devices be scriptable and controllable would be safer, healthier, & help shirk off such flamboyant legal assaults. Devices should be general purpose, scriptable, because anything else is unsafe & unfit for users.
- vmception 5y ago
  It is very routine to license patents We have no insight into what a licensing agreement would have looked like to judge We also have no idea if google just opted to not pay I cant hop on the “hostage industry” train without that detail
  - rektide 5y ago
    Im uninterested in my devices & functionality i use being ever subject to legal brawls, these ones & in general. Spotify is under no obligation to offer Fair Reasonable and Non-discrimatory license agreements. To say that license agreements are routine ignores the other half the time that agreements dont work out easily. A patent holder can hold the entire world back at their pleasure. In this case, over a couple line shell scripts we could teach middleschoolers in Hour of Code day. I have little sympathy for what feels like ambiguous legal murk you've layered over my concern. These particulars seem uninteresting amid what seems like yet another nimwitted IP fuck up that idoot grade patents were handed out to bloodthirsty IP robber barons. Once again consumers are in the crosshair. And this time we cannot seek alternate remedy, our devices are all beholden & bound up, controlled by solitary companies, vulnerable to legal assault. This is an unhealthy technical ecosystem, & it's unhealth has made it subject to wide forms of cruel & vicious legal attack on endless fronts, from an incompetent legal system.
mdoms 5y ago
Google have just (in the last hour) announced changes to the behaviour of speaker groups "due to a legal ruling". https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker-Group-changes/ba-p/77811 https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker... It sounds like an absolute nightmare for users, and if I was affected I would be demanding a refund for every affected device, as they clearly are no longer functioning as expected at the time of purchase.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It's fun those automatic updates which are only there for security reasons isn't it?
MBCook 5y ago
So Google buys Sonos by the end of the week?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  But i like my sonos products and want them to work for more than another few weeks... and theres no sonos chat app so why would they want sonos really?
  - MBCook 5y ago
    It’s me cynically suggesting that they’ll do that just to get rid of this annoyance. That’s what Facebook and many other big companies would do. I don’t know if Google has done in the past but it wouldn’t surprise me.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > It’s me cynically suggesting that they’ll do that just to get rid of this annoyance. Yes, i was just making a joke about how google kills things. > That’s what Facebook and many other big companies would do. I feel like this is pretty common across industries, idk why FB gets called out? > I don’t know if Google has done in the past but it wouldn’t surprise me. I can't remember anything they bought after losing a suit, but they did this with Moto, and i think also Kodak. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/08/google-to-buy-motorola-in-effort-to-defend-itself-from-patent-bullies/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/08/google-to-buy-motoro...
  - waych 5y ago
    "theres no sonos chat app" ... yet.
  - tacticus 5y ago
    Something something sonos old gen products being bricked...
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
jacquesm 5y ago
Note how Google got a bunch of insight into Sonos tech, then turned around and re-implemented it. That's pretty low behavior.
jacquesm 5y ago
Sonos is a crappy company, and Google are idiots for copying them in such a blatant way. Mixed feelings.
amaccuish 5y ago
Tbf I'm not particularly bothered, Google Cast for music streaming has for me at least been pretty poor. Apple has made AirPlay more open than Google has. Google Cast regularly takes 30 seconds to start streaming YouTube Music, where as AirPlay starts within 3 seconds. At least with AirPlay I can use shairplay to emulate a speaker. Therefore I bought Sonos speakers over Google Cast speakers for use from my Android phone.

As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en Playback device - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en Playback device connection - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en I'm a big fan of Sonos products but this ruling won't go through, right? Doesn't this effectively make Sonos the only legal manufacturer of wireless speaker systems? It's not like two speakers individually playing L and R channels is a novel concept... Plus it apparently bans imports on "Google Home smart speakers, Pixel phones and computers, and Google’s Chromecast streaming video device".

cushychicken 5y ago
Sonos has worked hard since its founding to quietly amass an impressive stable of streaming audio IP. It's not a matter of "if" anyone is infringing on their IP. It's a matter of "who can they reasonably win a ruling against".
comprambler 5y ago
Where is the Logitech/Squeezebox/Slim Devices patent war chest here? They have had volume on multi zone prior to 2012, syncing audio playback devices together, as well as having multichannel audio going to different squeezeboxes. These all seem to have at least prior art behind them and thus are indefensible.
joshspankit 5y ago
Is this why it’s seemingly impossible to have synced wireless audio that’s not AirPlay or Sonos?
sabertoothed 5y ago
The patent system is so broken.
- nceqs3 5y ago
  Yes, so broken that the original inventors of a product class had to spend $50 million on litigation in not even a court, but rather a quasi court in DC after a trillion dollar company stole their IP, because it's the last place where patent holders in the US get a reasonably fair shake.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    Software patents are an anathema on innovation. I'd go so far as to say all corporate patents are a hindrance to innovation. We're not in the days of singular inventors profiting off their inventions, which I'm fine with, as when corporations become patent trolls or create such broad patents like "able to play back on a device," then it gets a little ridiculous.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten years after patents expired they were $250 available worldwide. Today Prusa Research ships more 3D printers in three weeks than Stratasys sold for the first 20 years of their operation. Imagine how much more productive mechanical engineers would have been if they had cheap 3D printers a decade sooner, and what the cumulative follow on effects would have been for the world. And then imagine what the economy would be like if everything moved that fast? It would change the nature of investment from less frequent massive investments to more frequent smaller investments as companies copied each other at will, but the rate of growth would be amazing! Think of how cheap we could make MRI machines and other medical imaging devices if this theory holds for that field. Not to mention the extreme worldwide inequality perpetuated by intellectual property restrictions. How fast would the African continent develop if they were legally allowed to clone and copy the world's best manufacturing equipment and product designs. Intellectual property is a disaster for humankind. So many people believe a fable about IP with no material basis in reality. We're told IP "encourages innovation" even when the actual material function of IP restrictions is to prohibit innovation around any patented idea.
okwubodu 5y ago
> Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en Is this why I can’t change the volume on a Google Home speaker group anymore?
- joshspankit 5y ago
  Behind closed doors, I like to ask CEOs these questions: “What patents are holding you back?” “What would you build right now if there were no restrictions from copyright/patents?” There are some very surprising (caveat: not to most of HN) patents that are holding us back.
- metadat 5y ago
  I'm with you 100% here. It's unclear how often Googhomes receive updates, but at the beginning in 2019 my 9 Mini's worked great! But now for multiple speakers they are laggy and unreliable, sometimes just ending up in a neverending ding loop. Unfortunate to buy a product such as this and have functionality and experience quality steadily decline thereafter. Initially I was a huge fan and in love with the product. Perhaps I should've known better, since Big-G isn't exactly known for long-term support of anything unless it still makes them torrents of money. Sonos are in a similar boat, buy an older controller and the app will constantly nag you to upgrade, but not allow you to upgrade because the controller is "too old and no longer compatible".
- awslattery 5y ago
  I don't use speaker groups, but could possibly be related to this issue from Android 12 -- where it seems Google walked back, disabled, or pulled out previously present functionality, possibly related to this litigation: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/201546605?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/201546605?pli=1
- jetrink 5y ago
  I wonder if any of those cover switching devices. You used to be able to say, "Hey Google, move that to the kitchen," and whatever you were listening to would stop and continue in the kitchen. It still understands the command, but then fails with an error. That feature was something that I used every morning as I moved through the house getting ready for the day. I can't point to a single thing that these devices do better than they did two years ago, but I can list several features that were important to me that are now either broken or missing.
Closi 5y ago
> System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en This one in particular seems way too broad. So... they have a patent on the concept of deducting latency from a message to synchronize clocks? (and then sending data with a timestamp for when it will play?)
- koolba 5y ago
  I wonder if they keep their server times in sync with ntp.
- yccs27 5y ago
  Interesingly, none of the specific claims referenced in the decision have to do with clock synchronization, they all focus on the act of grouping speakers in some way and controlling them together.
- laserbeam 5y ago
  Irrespective of the patent details, this is actually a fun and not at all straightforward hardware project to implement. I had a failed attempt at this in uni, and synchronizing audio across multiple computers (rasps) is a really cool challenge.
  - izacus 5y ago
    But did you pay the rent to Sonos while you were doing that project? It's, after all, their intelectual property now.
    - texasbigdata 5y ago
      You don't know the year he/she went to University.
      - boondaburrah 5y ago
        you do know that raspis were involved, so it can't be before 2012. However, AirFoil/AirPlay existed before that and could do this.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Hopefully big G won't find a way to weasel out now that they don't have as much executive favor with the US government as they used to. Bear in mind this case is more than just Google using some common patents: Google worked with Sonos on a collaborative project as a way to gain access to internal details of how their technology worked, and then they stole it.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
nceqs3 5y ago
Remember the ITC is NOT a court, it's part of the executive branch. Their decisions are appealable to the federal circuit but they are effectively never stayed pending appeal (because there is already an appeals process built into the ITC). There is an interesting counterintuitive game that is played where the defendant tries to get MORE of their products included in the exclusion order to make an appeal easier. Sonos could have requested a general exclusion order which would bar ANY infringing product from entering the US, but they only requested a limited exclusion order against Google Home products. Let the lobbying games begin... I am fairly confident that Biden will not overturn the ITC decision but you never know. Google also counter sued Sonos over Google's patents in multiple jurisdictions and Sonos has made it clear to investors that this is all a fight for a settlement.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  At some point it becomes worth it to put in the effort to try to get the Sonos patents invalidated, and some of them seem very broad. Hard to believe that some of those things were “invented” only in the last 20 years. Most inventions aren’t patented, so I’d speculate that probably almost all patents could be invalidated by someone dedicated with a team of experts to scour history for prior art.
  - HotHotLava 5y ago
    There was nothing comparable to a modern multiroom smart speaker around in 2001, so they certainly were invented in the last 20 years. Whether that was by Sonos or by someone else, and whether these specific patents should have been granted is another question of course.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      I remember musik in the 1990s at the restaurant I worked at. We had it in the kitchen and a different channel in the seating area. Turn a switch on the wall to change channels, if the kitchen and seating were on the same channel then they had music in sync. Now this was an entirely hardwired system, and there was no remote. I don't know what sonos's patents are for, but the idea was in place and the difference is do it by wireless computer.
yccs27 5y ago
Google will probably have to get the patents themselves removed, by proving prior work or such. Those patents are way too broad. I wonder what Bose does, they have their own multiroom system. Do they license the patents from Sonos?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > Do they license the patents from Sonos? IIRC Some other companies made agreements with Sonos to avoid suites (incl apple i blieve?), but sonos has claimed that google was bullying them over a number of things, including the claim that GAssistant only supports one assistant/wake word at a time, per contract, but alexa does not have this limitation. But thats apparently why the android app is worse, they don't support casting, and they're focusing on the apple/alexa ecosystem (airplay, etc).
  - sho_hn 5y ago
    The major feature the Android app lacks is the "Trueplay" tuning. It relies on a phone to generate and record a sound to map out a room's acoustics, then optimizes the Sonos speaker's output for the room. I've always been wondering if the lack of Trueplay support is due to shortcomings in Android's audio APIs or something like this.
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      Things like that usually require knowing the hardware characteristics of the device itself as well as some form of calibration range. For iOS Sonos can just buy (or borrow) a couple of iphones every year to generate that data. Doing the same on Android gets a lot harder thanks to the more diverse hardware ecosystem.
yccs27 5y ago
The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they can be controlled as a unit when grouped.
- codys 5y ago
  "Simple Jack panel, but computer controlled" is not novel and should not be patentable.
  - yccs27 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm absolutely not arguing this should be patentable. It seems like they are obvious and marginal (at best) changes to preexisting systems, even if they were the first ones to describe them. Still, the patents are not as boundlessly broad as some commenters here seem to think, for instance they clearly exclude hard-wired multispeaker systems.
- yccs27 5y ago
  To those downvoting: Am I wrong here? Not defending the patents, I just want people to stop tearing down strawmen instead of the real thing.
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    This sounds an awful lot like what I've been able to do with digital theatre sound systems for a long time, so I don't think it's novel.

AceJohnny2 5y ago

Is Sonos suing Apple as well? Seems like the tech in dispute is also used by HomePods and AirPlay. I can't quickly find anything about Sonos suing Apple, and in fact Apple was selling Sonos speakers in their stores in 2020 [1]. What is the deal? [1] https://www.imore.com/apple-begins-sell-sonos-speaker-company-accuses-google-and-amazon-patent-theft https://www.imore.com/apple-begins-sell-sonos-speaker-compan...

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Google explicitly partnered with Sonos in a collaborative project to find out how Sonos' tech worked, then copied it. It's plausible that Sonos feels Google explicitly stole from them, and Apple built something else. Or, empowered by a win against Google, they file suit against Apple tomorrow. No reason to be in two high cost lawsuits at the same time.
- metadat 5y ago
  Any source to back up this claim? This sounds unusually stupid, even for Goggle - because they could've just poached a few engineers and it would be less risky than public, high-profile corporate espionage.
  - rasz 5y ago
    As stupid as this sounds, this is usual Google MO coming all the way from the top with both Sergey Brin and Larry Page involved in person "In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow" https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alphabets-project-loon-balloons/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha... https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/ https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip-case-over-high-altitude-balloons/?slreturn=20210022125647 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    It's a core part of Sonos' complaint, I am sure you could find it in the legal filings, but this article about a preliminary injunction against Google in Germany about the same issue starts with that detail in particular: https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021 https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

akersten 5y ago

Patents are horrible. Can you really look me in the face and tell me that controlling the volume of speakers independently of each other is some kind of special idea - not even a concrete product, but so innovative that the very concept deserves an exclusive license and millions in damages from those that dare implement a common-sense UX control? If you can, let me know where I can sign up for free Sonos products for astroturfing too.

taurath 5y ago
It tells people to not bother inventing anything, everything “legally” has already been invented by people with more money and lawyers than you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ra-mos 5y ago
Yes, because at one point in time that was an innovation. You said it yourself.
- akersten 5y ago
  Where did I say that was an innovation? And if it was an innovation at some point in time, I insist it was the year stereo was invented and the concept was just as invalid as a patent as it is today. Of course you expect the volume of your Left and Right channel to be controlled by the same volume knob. This patent is like a car manufacturer patenting the idea of controlling all your direction with a single steering wheel, and all the other manufacturers are forced to implement individual steering wheels for each tire. It's just absurd.
  - ra-mos 5y ago
    Your next metaphor is worse. If a steering system wan an invention/innovation than it deserves ip rights. What are you on? Should everything be equally competed in society, even after invention?

DiabloD3 5y ago

I'm not a patent lawyer, but can anyone explain to me how this wasn't already covered by either part of multi-zone systems in the 80s/90s, or part of literally every single room correction tech since the late 90s? Sonos didn't exist when this technology was invented. Edit: Surprised I'm getting downvoted for this. All the patents listed are things multi-zone and room correcting systems already do. Look at technology built by Dirac or Audyssey for latency-correcting multiple clock domains; they already do it. Audyssey, Dirac, and Sonos all started around the same time, around 20 years ago, and all base their technology on the companies and engineers who came before them, and Audyssey and Dirac have solutions that are lightyears ahead of Sonos. How does Sonos have valid patents here when its identical to what two better companies have done at the same time, or worse, what companies before them have already done? Something does not sound right here.

HotHotLava 5y ago
I'm also not a patent lawyer, but for example the multi-room volume control patent specifically covers a mesh network of independent playback devices that can be dynamically rearranged into possibly overlapping zones, with the volume controls being on a separate device in the local network. I would be surprised if that already existed in the 90s? I'd actually already be surprised if network-connected speakers were around back then, let alone all the mesh networking stuff.
vmception 5y ago
The ITC cant invalidate patents so it was never part of the question ITC can only look at imports and damages - aka lack of profit split - where they were due And they found they were due, given the existence of the patent valid during the time in question Feel free to correct me I’m wrong about the ITC
- ycIsGarbage 5y ago
  The ITC can definitely adjudicate invalidity.
  - 5y ago

ethernet_cable 5y ago

This is the reason the physical volume buttons on Android 12 on Pixel phones no longer adjust Chromecasted music volume, unless you are in the music app in question. Adjusting Spotify cast on the Google Home used to be so easy... https://www.androidpolice.com/google-had-to-remove-cast-volume-controls-in-android-12-for-legal-reasons/ https://www.androidpolice.com/google-had-to-remove-cast-volu...

mdoms 5y ago
> This is the reason the physical volume buttons on Android 12 on Pixel phones no longer adjust Chromecasted music volume, unless you are in the music app in question. Are you f'ing kidding me? This has been driving me nuts, I assumed it was just another stupid Android bug that would eventually be silently patched. It's so annoying how functionality like this can be removed without a peep, at least inform me if you're going to do this. (It's not just Pixel phones, same problem with my Samsung A51 and I just got a brand new Motorola phone with the same problem).
- nmstoker 5y ago
  Yes, this drove me nuts. And was even more annoying because Google Support were totally unaware and acted like morons - it was about 30 minutes before I realised they had no clue what they were investigating and were just blindly plodding along, at which point I told them I'd give up. Weirdly they spammed me a few more times to try to get me to come back to resolve it (without giving any indication they knew any more).
- vmception 5y ago
  They could have licensed the patent, I know crazy talk, but we never see what the licensing arrangements would have been
  - contravariant 5y ago
    The patent for what? Connecting a volume button to the volume of something?
  - deleted 5y ago

rektide 5y ago

It's so hard to imagine the entire industry being held hostage like this. My second thought is that this radically enhances the need for good IoT standards. Right now many devices are built to grant Google & Google alone the capability to control & orchestrate. Our devices are all vulnerable to legal attach because Google is the sole arbiter of control over our systems, and no one else has much of a say in how these devices run or operate; their capabilities are not up for general use. By making devices which are more API centric, by having them expose what capabilities they have, in a networked fashion, not solely controlled by Google, there would be the possibility for other folks to step in & try to navigate & make offerings here. The risk to product owners would be diffused, there would be more resilience in what would be possible with devices, rather than this being such a 1 vs 1 battle. Things like group volume control seem like ideal candidates for tech that even a bone-headed laymen could implement in a couple lines of code, if specifications like the upcoming Matter IoT specifications were available & in use. Some of the capabilities covered by these patents may need to be baked somewhat closer to the firmware. But for many of them, it feels like the rigid, fixed, top-down control system we've relied on is an epic legal vulnerability, one Sonos is driving a mac truck through. Letting our devices be scriptable and controllable would be safer, healthier, & help shirk off such flamboyant legal assaults. Devices should be general purpose, scriptable, because anything else is unsafe & unfit for users.

vmception 5y ago
It is very routine to license patents We have no insight into what a licensing agreement would have looked like to judge We also have no idea if google just opted to not pay I cant hop on the “hostage industry” train without that detail
- rektide 5y ago
  Im uninterested in my devices & functionality i use being ever subject to legal brawls, these ones & in general. Spotify is under no obligation to offer Fair Reasonable and Non-discrimatory license agreements. To say that license agreements are routine ignores the other half the time that agreements dont work out easily. A patent holder can hold the entire world back at their pleasure. In this case, over a couple line shell scripts we could teach middleschoolers in Hour of Code day. I have little sympathy for what feels like ambiguous legal murk you've layered over my concern. These particulars seem uninteresting amid what seems like yet another nimwitted IP fuck up that idoot grade patents were handed out to bloodthirsty IP robber barons. Once again consumers are in the crosshair. And this time we cannot seek alternate remedy, our devices are all beholden & bound up, controlled by solitary companies, vulnerable to legal assault. This is an unhealthy technical ecosystem, & it's unhealth has made it subject to wide forms of cruel & vicious legal attack on endless fronts, from an incompetent legal system.

mdoms 5y ago

Google have just (in the last hour) announced changes to the behaviour of speaker groups "due to a legal ruling". https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker-Group-changes/ba-p/77811 https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Upcoming-Speaker... It sounds like an absolute nightmare for users, and if I was affected I would be demanding a refund for every affected device, as they clearly are no longer functioning as expected at the time of purchase.

jacquesm 5y ago
It's fun those automatic updates which are only there for security reasons isn't it?

MBCook 5y ago

So Google buys Sonos by the end of the week?

vineyardmike 5y ago
But i like my sonos products and want them to work for more than another few weeks... and theres no sonos chat app so why would they want sonos really?
- MBCook 5y ago
  It’s me cynically suggesting that they’ll do that just to get rid of this annoyance. That’s what Facebook and many other big companies would do. I don’t know if Google has done in the past but it wouldn’t surprise me.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > It’s me cynically suggesting that they’ll do that just to get rid of this annoyance. Yes, i was just making a joke about how google kills things. > That’s what Facebook and many other big companies would do. I feel like this is pretty common across industries, idk why FB gets called out? > I don’t know if Google has done in the past but it wouldn’t surprise me. I can't remember anything they bought after losing a suit, but they did this with Moto, and i think also Kodak. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/08/google-to-buy-motorola-in-effort-to-defend-itself-from-patent-bullies/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/08/google-to-buy-motoro...
- waych 5y ago
  "theres no sonos chat app" ... yet.
- tacticus 5y ago
  Something something sonos old gen products being bricked...
  - vineyardmike 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Note how Google got a bunch of insight into Sonos tech, then turned around and re-implemented it. That's pretty low behavior.

jacquesm 5y ago

Sonos is a crappy company, and Google are idiots for copying them in such a blatant way. Mixed feelings.

amaccuish 5y ago

Tbf I'm not particularly bothered, Google Cast for music streaming has for me at least been pretty poor. Apple has made AirPlay more open than Google has. Google Cast regularly takes 30 seconds to start streaming YouTube Music, where as AirPlay starts within 3 seconds. At least with AirPlay I can use shairplay to emulate a speaker. Therefore I bought Sonos speakers over Google Cast speakers for use from my Android phone.