34 ms·

Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied

218 points by alistairSH 5y ago

utopcell 5y ago
I find it really sad that Sonos resorted to this. In my mind, this means it is struggling to find it's place in a market that now includes all the big names. I own a Sonos play:5, a couple Nest Hubs and some Amazon echoes, and even to this day, in terms of sound quality, nothing beats the play:5. I wonder if Sonos has gone after Apple as well for this trivial patent.
granzymes 5y ago
This seems like it could lower the likelihood of future patent troll lawsuits against Google. They've established here that they are willing to just remove features instead of paying royalties. Sonos no doubt lost a lot of money on this lawsuit.
taubek 5y ago
Can you block devices from getting an "upgrade" which is basically a "downgrade"?
- jdavis703 5y ago
  You can, but you’d then be personally violating the patent. That’s illegal, and then you too could also be sued.
  - CommanderData 5y ago
    I'm not sure if blocking an update for whatever reason would count as patent infringement on part of a end-user.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Or does the consumer have any recourse with Google? I suspect not in the USA, but maybe in the EU (assuming Google rolls this feature removal out globally)?
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  There's a reason Google operates an entire stack for completely encrypted end-to-end communication to Google datacenters, including now encrypted DNS. Essentially anything connected to the Internet, Google can establish a completely unblockable communication with directly, provided you intend to allow it to connect to Google servers at all.
thatguy0900 5y ago
I really wish there would be some kind of overhaul in patents. Why was a patent for "The technology in question relates to the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume." ever granted? That seems like the very first thing you would do when connecting two speakers. Unless this is some kind of ai that tracks where you are and dynamically changes volumes to maintain a surround sound feel or something where is the novelty at?
- nailer 5y ago
  Came here to say the same thing. I'm the last fan of Google but "the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume" is obvious to conceive of and implement to any engineer with sufficient expertise in the field.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Sound engineers and technicians have been controlling speaker group volume for probably a century now. The Sonos patent is more than just an obvious invention. Otherwise the courts would’ve tossed it out.
    - Workaccount2 5y ago
      I have zero faith in court's ability to see through techno-babble.
  - Bud 5y ago
    It's not obvious at all, for wireless speakers, especially in complex multi-room setups. If it were obvious and easy, then everyone's wireless audio products would handle this as well as Sonos does. But they don't. I bought two Sonos One SLs and had them set up as a stereo pair that my Apple TV could talk to almost instantly. Then recently I got a Sonos Beam soundbar and wanted to use my One SLs as surround speakers. I expected a long, painful setup similar to what I've experienced with competing products. Instead it was seamless, easy, and delightful, and I haven't had to touch or mess with the setup at all since. There are also a lot of details like how to handle time delays with a large set of wireless speakers so that sound is synced with a TV picture, comparative volume adjustments for a given acoustic, etc. Did you read the patents or any other reporting on the patents or this case? For instance: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-sonos-sues-google-for-patent-infringement/?itm_source=parsely-api https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-patent-case-starts-stripping-functionality-from-speakers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-p...
techsin101 5y ago
i doubt this is the end of it, i hope this gets overruled.
- strictnein 5y ago
  I too hope the 1.82T dollar company doesn't have to pay the company that's roughly 500x smaller than it is.
  - techsin101 5y ago
    this is patent trolling, stuff getting patented is control volume on speakers, swipe on mobile app, double tap to open something... completely obvious non-sense.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Infringing on patents need not involve "copying" or "stolen technology", and shitty outlets like Inc. know their framing is BS.
- eganist 5y ago
  I mean, it seems like Inc's pretty clear in their position that Google could just pay for the technology they infringed ("The company doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied") rather than backtrack on features they promised their users, and it's a point that stands pretty well on its own without even needing a long article to back it, though this certainly helps their readers with the background behind what's going on. I'm keen on seeing whether Google ends up on the receiving end of a class action suit for disabling features that were sold to customers and then disabled after the fact.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  We may never know if Google used their special insider access with Sonos to steal technology or not. But the optics certainly don’t look good.
  - Bud 5y ago
    On the contrary, we already know, and the details in the suit prove it. Sonos engineers used packet sniffing. Google copied the precise techniques Sonos uses to set up and control speakers.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      That's how you're supposed to do it. The Precision Time Protocol was fully standardized before Sonos was founded specifically intended for synchronization of media streams across different systems (among other use cases). There were other similar schemes before that. This is why RTP even has a separate timestamp field when it could simply be computed from the sequence and media codec metadata. You didn't see it much in the consumer space at the time, but the professional music production studio space had to address these concepts back in the 90s.
RealityVoid 5y ago
You know what, this is bullshit. They are making the customers pay for Google's problems. This is unacceptable, what blame do they have for the IP troubles? Google should pay, if it's deemed to be infringing, but the functionality should stay the same for the customer. Imagine this, someone coming to your house to hobble your product's functionality because another company sued the company you bought the product from. This is proof of lacking customer protection and leverage. I think Sonos's case is bullshit anyway, and I think this whole patent environment is ridiculous, but the approach they took to solve it is unethical.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Google doesn't and hasn't ever cared if their approach is ethical. It cares that this approach is legal (sometimes), and profitable (always). Do not expect ethics from big corporations.
  - Handytinge 5y ago
    "Don't be evil"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nosianu 5y ago
Sorry, but for this link I only get 404 Page Not Found We're sorry for any inconvenience. We can't find the page you're looking for. I would not say anything if it said "blocked for your IP/country", but it appears there is nothing any more behind that link. Was the article removed? EDIT: Ad-blocker (uBlock Origin) off and the page loads. I should have thought of that, there was a flicker of something else before the "not found". Still very strange to show a "404 Not Found" in retaliation for an ad-blocker instead of complaining about the latter.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  The article is appearing for me (US).
- kop316 5y ago
  Are you using uMatrix? I had to completely disable any scripts to get it to appear, or else I got a 404.
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    Oh, wow. Thank you, that worked for me.
    - kop316 5y ago
      Happy to help!
hluska 5y ago
If anyone is interested, this article lists five patents: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1191_notice01062022sgl.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices... They’re located here (the source is kind of funny): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9748647?oq=9%2c195%2c258 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9748647?oq=9%2c195%2c258 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en?oq=10%2c209%2c953 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en?oq=10%2c20... https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en?oq=9%2c219%2c959 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en?oq=9%2c219%... https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en?oq=8%2c588%2c949 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en?oq=8%2c588%... https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en?oq=10%2c439%2c896 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en?oq=10%2c43...
- pizza234 5y ago
  Thanks for posting. The article and it the one it references don't even mention the patents themselves, which is... not exactly great journalism.
- invisible 5y ago
  Wow, only the first of these seems like anything beyond the obvious necessity to synchronize _anything_ (grouping, pairing, synchronizing, settings for a group).
footlose_3815 5y ago
[dead]
mhb 5y ago
If only Google could settle this by creating some software for Sonos to make their interface usable.
boringg 5y ago
This is interesting from a google perspective. From an active Sonos user (4 speakers throughout the house) - I can say that as a product it seems to be getting better but is pretty tough to work with. It doesn't work well with Spotify unless you use their app (why would I want to add another app thats poorly designed for music) - and getting multiple speakers to work together is hit or miss (how ? It's supposed to be a core feature of the system). I'm torn as I don't really want to support Google - I also don't support Sonos it is a mediocre product wrapped up in a ton of marketing. In the end I guess I'm neutral.
snickerer 5y ago
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.
  - duxup 5y ago
    > having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
    - mbreese 5y ago
      Not intentionally, but they did sell something with a feature, only to remove that feature later. The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        In reality, Sonos is not even required to license the ‘technology’ and should they decide to do so, they can ask whatever price they want. Would you suggest there is some legal way to make Google liable for that?
kleiba 5y ago
For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?
  - CodesInChaos 5y ago
    Wasn't that a design patent, which is closer to a trademark than an actual patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      Well it obviously didn't hold up. IMO Apple had a copyright, maybe, it shouldn't have been patentable though. Design != technology so shouldn't be patentable.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        That’s why it’s a design patent, which is completely different concept from an invention patent. For one, it lasts forever.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    The "rounded corners" narrative needs to die. It wasn't just rounded corners. It was a combination of design features for a specific device that, among other things, included rounded corners.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
josephcsible 5y ago
In the pre-Internet days, if company A sold a bunch of products to customers that violated company B's patent, company B could go after company A for money and an injunction against selling more products, but they couldn't send goons to break in to all of the customers' houses to damage the already-sold products. Why is the equivalent okay today?
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  because products are sold with an easy to break functionality of the product function added to them. If it were possible to know where all people lived with the product in the old days, and we had instant cheap teleportation of goons for breaking of products back then it would have just been the way things were done.
- josefx 5y ago
  Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over with online update at any time it feels like it and you have absolutely no legal expectation that your Google toy will still work tomorrow? Let alone have any of the features you bought it with?
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over Everyone says this. Unfortunately nobody reads the "contract". That alone means that most users do not fully understand what they're doing. On top of that, Google, and many tech companies, frequently misrepresent what they're offering.
    - carlmcqueen 5y ago
      Or even continually change it. So even if you agreed with original terms, to continue using it you have to keep accepting the changes.
- jpambrun 5y ago
  It's probably illegal in most jurisdiction. However, they have lost the case with Sonos and it's more economical/sensical for them to wait for the unlikely event of a class action lawsuit and pay in the more unlikely event of a loss. In other words, for google to pay damage to Sonos or consumer before having lost to consumer is non-sensical.
samwillis 5y ago
Discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841067
Jyaif 5y ago
One way around those bullshit patents is to let users program/script their devices, or install whatever software they want. Also, with good enough AIs we could work around many patents! Users could simply explain the AIs what they want them to do. Even if the action they teach infringe on a patent, nobody would be able to sue them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Pxtl 5y ago
Well, it's not like Google speakers make any sense even with this behavior. I keep mine generally ungrouped because I have one speaker per room. When I broadcast "Okay Google, broadcast: Hey, son, what do you want on your burger?" it's not exactly a stellar experience... It usually goes <long pause> 1st speaker: Hey, Son wh 2nd speaker: Hey, Son, what do you wan 3,4,5 in overlap: Hey, son, what do you want on your burger while my son is trying to answer the first one. I mean, you're all on the same wifi network this isn't really excusable behavior. So, Google: even with stolen technology you still kinda stink at this.
- ibdf 5y ago
  I use it to play music in multiple rooms... it works great.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Mine's primarily used for intercom, messaging, and simple weather updates, where its main achievement is intercepting audio requests where it tries to answer things I want to do with my phone and thus blocks my phone from providing useful functionality. "I'm sorry I don't know how to do that" yes but my phone does so shut up and get out of the way. Multi-room music playing isn't something I've attempted. Do you have the speakers grouped together or keep them ungrouped? Does it do a good job of keeping them in sync? Because my biggest disappointments are generally in the poor coordination between the devices on the network not knowing which should handle a request - often I'll be right next to a speaker and make a request, and the one in the next room will reply, bewilderingly.
    - ibdf 5y ago
      I have several google minis, and a couple of google hubs (first gen). You need to group the devices and then tell google to play the songs in that group... it has worked really well for me - so I'm hoping I won't lose that functionality. If they are too close together the speakers struggle to figure out which one is closer to me . For instance, I used to have one in the living room and one in the kitchen (rooms that are close together without a separating wall) and often they will both answer my question. I ended up turning off the mic in one of them. Every now and then I use it as an intercom but with mixed results. My take on the google products is that they are far from perfect, but I really don't see anything better out there. I own several Apple products, but when it comes to smart home they have very little to offer, and Siri is far behind the google assistant.
peterclary 5y ago
I wonder if this also explains the weird >1 year delay for Denon adding the promised wireless speaker grouping support to its Soundbar 550.
cakoose 5y ago
For companies in Google's situation, a common tactic is to stop infringing ASAP and then find a workaround. Since patents are typically for mechanisms rather than features, Google might be able to implement a roundabout mechanism to achieve the same goal.
jpgvm 5y ago
Patent law is dumb. I hope Google goes nuclear on Sonos with their ridiculously huge patent portfolio just to show everyone just how petty and stupid the patent infringement system is.
boringg 5y ago
Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probably will impact my sonos experience (less R&D money to spend). Sorry to users that will be impacted - don't worry Google will come out with a volume adjuster in the near term.
- Veen 5y ago
  In my experience, Sonos hardware is great but their software is woefully bad: slow, buggy junk. But then, the same is true of Apple's stuff: HomePod hardware is very impressive, but Siri and Apple Music are crap.
  - boringg 5y ago
    To be fair to Sonos if I want to use their app (that has terrible user experience) I think it would work 99% of the time. I didn't buy Sonos for their music software - I bought it to use Spotify over my speaker system. I don't use Sonos for music (and never will) I use Spotify (Not Spotify embedded in Sonos app) and its a constant cluster of a time to get it working on more than one speaker. Core functionality to their arguably largest user base.
  - dirtybird04 5y ago
    Is Apple Music really crap? Their UI isn't the slickest but their service, audio quality, and music catalog is top notch. And unlike their Swedish counterparts, they aren't trying to push crappy podcasts on me to up their revenue
    - Veen 5y ago
      It's the UI latency that annoys me. I just opened it on my phone and had to wait 8 seconds before the "Listen Now" screen appeared. Same wait when I click on the "Browse". Plus lots of irritating UI deficiencies, especially on the Mac version.
jacknews 5y ago
Is the patent 'controlling speakers as a group' or the detailed mechanism that makes it possible? In the former case, it's not a patent, but just a feature. Patents need to be about how you accomplish features, and need to be non-obvious.
jcranberry 5y ago
Sonos makes products that are best in class?
- The-Bus 5y ago
  In terms of what's available in an mass market electronics store, sure. Is it best in class compared to a receiver set up with casting and $2,000 speakers? No, but that's not the problem Sonos is trying to solve.
godDLL 5y ago
I remember iPhone 4s (s is for speed). You'd buy one, and then Apple would "upgrade it" via software update removing the s. Which was the thing you bought it for. I wonder what that was about.
exodust 5y ago
I hope there's no patents for EQ settings. It took Sonos 3 years to finally add EQ to the play screen in the app. I'd hate for that to disappear because someone had the idea for: "group of sliders that cut a specific range of frequencies to improve sound quality".
splap 5y ago
I have a couple of these nest speakers. They are are wildly unreliable - buyer beware.
suifbwish 5y ago
They indeed are. Google search shows vastly worst results than what it’s engine is capable. This is a deep learning trick to train the search models better and better
humanistbot 5y ago
I have 10 nest mini speakers in my home, in various speaker groups. My main use cases are broken, because so many different apps play at wildly different volumes. I want to box them up, ship them to google, and get my money back. How do I do this?
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  There is technically nothing stopping you from sending them to a Google office... you have their address. But there is no way they will give you your money back.
nohat 5y ago
How much did Sonos pay to get this article written? It's tripping over itself praising Sonos and repeating over and over that Google should pay Sonos.
easton_s 5y ago
Linus Tech Tips has a current video showing this kind if patent "non-obvious"-ness was broken long before the "with a computer" age. A mechanical calculator had to split the "divide" button into two buttons because another company had a patent on a "single button division" patent. https://youtu.be/axtQvkSpoto?t=470 https://youtu.be/axtQvkSpoto?t=470
s17n 5y ago
What's really frustrating about this situation for me is that Google has given up on audio (discontinued Chromecast Audio, no replacement for Home Max) but as a result of this bullshit, I also can't use my Google products with Sonos, the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well. Instead, Google's strategy is to partner with a bunch of legacy audio companies (https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-in/audio/ https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-in/audio/) where you just know that the firmware is going to be jank and the products will all eventually be discontinued, and in the long run these companies are dinosaurs and they are all going to die. I just clicked through to the NAD chromecast amp and instead of giving me a price and a "buy now" button, there is a "find a dealer" button. You have got to be fucking kidding me.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  > the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well I strongly disagree with this. You don't own your speakers which are completely dependent on manufacturer which can brick them permanently on a whim. Fuck that and fuck Sonos. That is not a definition of 'doing audio well in 21st century' in any meaningful sense. As for audio quality, there are companies making better sounding products that allow you to do whatever you want with their products and usually for much/at least a bit less.
  - s17n 5y ago
    > You don't own your speakers which are completely dependent on manufacturer which can brick them permanently on a whim. Like I said, a 21st century company, with bad things that implies as well as the good things.
- neoromantique 5y ago
  I'd take a NAD amp over anything that Sonos sells any day of the week, thanks.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    and you can have my NAD amp over my dead body, though when I am dead, you can get it with a Slim Devices/Logitech Duet Receiver (Burr/Brown 24 bit DAC), which I'll also take over the current Sonos offerings.
kodah 5y ago
> Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos's speakers, the latter company gave the search giant an inside look at its technology. At the time, it didn't seem like a big deal. Google wasn't making speakers, and it wasn't in the smart home business at all. Did anyone lose their job?
markhahn 5y ago
The patent system is broken: these features are obvious and should not be protected.
g-technology 5y ago
How does Sonos have a patent on this when Squeezebox did speaker groups before Sonos was ever a company?
K0balt 5y ago
I mean, it sounds like a stupid patent, but if the court says so then it’s valid. We either live with the rule of law or we don’t. Also, we need to fix IP law, but I digress. But… wtf Google? Do you have some kind of “we don’t negotiate with people we stole from” ultimatum, or are you just trying to piss off the people that bought into your dystopian nightmare buttons?
bilalq 5y ago
I'm no fan of Google as a company, but it really sucks how patents are still being abused to the detriment of the average person. I wonder what the likelihood of retaliation is, since I'm sure Google has a much deeper patent catalog they could weaponize.
nikolay 5y ago
Boycott Sonos! I am not a fan of Google, but sometimes I don't get how companies like Sonos get patents on stuff that's not really an invention - it's called "common sense"!
dreamcompiler 5y ago
The main reason I (literally) threw my Nest thermostat in the trash was that Nest (Google) kept installing updates I couldn't veto, and without exception every update made the device worse. I disabled the wifi for a while but of course then I could no longer control the thermostat with my phone, so eventually I just replaced it with a dumb thermostat and I've not bought a Nest product since.
dusted 5y ago
"technology" yeah, like one control to adjust the volume on MORE THAN A SINGLE SPEAKER AT A TIME.. I think that feature is also on.. every single piece of audio equipment I've ever owned.. making it wireless is not even an innovation.
Handytinge 5y ago
I look forward to the class action against Google for this.

218 points by alistairSH 5y ago

I find it really sad that Sonos resorted to this. In my mind, this means it is struggling to find it's place in a market that now includes all the big names. I own a Sonos play:5, a couple Nest Hubs and some Amazon echoes, and even to this day, in terms of sound quality, nothing beats the play:5. I wonder if Sonos has gone after Apple as well for this trivial patent.

granzymes 5y ago

This seems like it could lower the likelihood of future patent troll lawsuits against Google. They've established here that they are willing to just remove features instead of paying royalties. Sonos no doubt lost a lot of money on this lawsuit.

taubek 5y ago

Can you block devices from getting an "upgrade" which is basically a "downgrade"?

jdavis703 5y ago
You can, but you’d then be personally violating the patent. That’s illegal, and then you too could also be sued.
- CommanderData 5y ago
  I'm not sure if blocking an update for whatever reason would count as patent infringement on part of a end-user.
alistairSH 5y ago
Or does the consumer have any recourse with Google? I suspect not in the USA, but maybe in the EU (assuming Google rolls this feature removal out globally)?
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
There's a reason Google operates an entire stack for completely encrypted end-to-end communication to Google datacenters, including now encrypted DNS. Essentially anything connected to the Internet, Google can establish a completely unblockable communication with directly, provided you intend to allow it to connect to Google servers at all.

thatguy0900 5y ago

I really wish there would be some kind of overhaul in patents. Why was a patent for "The technology in question relates to the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume." ever granted? That seems like the very first thing you would do when connecting two speakers. Unless this is some kind of ai that tracks where you are and dynamically changes volumes to maintain a surround sound feel or something where is the novelty at?

nailer 5y ago
Came here to say the same thing. I'm the last fan of Google but "the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume" is obvious to conceive of and implement to any engineer with sufficient expertise in the field.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Sound engineers and technicians have been controlling speaker group volume for probably a century now. The Sonos patent is more than just an obvious invention. Otherwise the courts would’ve tossed it out.
  - Workaccount2 5y ago
    I have zero faith in court's ability to see through techno-babble.
- Bud 5y ago
  It's not obvious at all, for wireless speakers, especially in complex multi-room setups. If it were obvious and easy, then everyone's wireless audio products would handle this as well as Sonos does. But they don't. I bought two Sonos One SLs and had them set up as a stereo pair that my Apple TV could talk to almost instantly. Then recently I got a Sonos Beam soundbar and wanted to use my One SLs as surround speakers. I expected a long, painful setup similar to what I've experienced with competing products. Instead it was seamless, easy, and delightful, and I haven't had to touch or mess with the setup at all since. There are also a lot of details like how to handle time delays with a large set of wireless speakers so that sound is synced with a TV picture, comparative volume adjustments for a given acoustic, etc. Did you read the patents or any other reporting on the patents or this case? For instance: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-sonos-sues-google-for-patent-infringement/?itm_source=parsely-api https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-patent-case-starts-stripping-functionality-from-speakers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-p...

techsin101 5y ago

i doubt this is the end of it, i hope this gets overruled.

strictnein 5y ago
I too hope the 1.82T dollar company doesn't have to pay the company that's roughly 500x smaller than it is.
- techsin101 5y ago
  this is patent trolling, stuff getting patented is control volume on speakers, swipe on mobile app, double tap to open something... completely obvious non-sense.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Infringing on patents need not involve "copying" or "stolen technology", and shitty outlets like Inc. know their framing is BS.

eganist 5y ago
I mean, it seems like Inc's pretty clear in their position that Google could just pay for the technology they infringed ("The company doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied") rather than backtrack on features they promised their users, and it's a point that stands pretty well on its own without even needing a long article to back it, though this certainly helps their readers with the background behind what's going on. I'm keen on seeing whether Google ends up on the receiving end of a class action suit for disabling features that were sold to customers and then disabled after the fact.
jdavis703 5y ago
We may never know if Google used their special insider access with Sonos to steal technology or not. But the optics certainly don’t look good.
- Bud 5y ago
  On the contrary, we already know, and the details in the suit prove it. Sonos engineers used packet sniffing. Google copied the precise techniques Sonos uses to set up and control speakers.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That's how you're supposed to do it. The Precision Time Protocol was fully standardized before Sonos was founded specifically intended for synchronization of media streams across different systems (among other use cases). There were other similar schemes before that. This is why RTP even has a separate timestamp field when it could simply be computed from the sequence and media codec metadata. You didn't see it much in the consumer space at the time, but the professional music production studio space had to address these concepts back in the 90s.

RealityVoid 5y ago

You know what, this is bullshit. They are making the customers pay for Google's problems. This is unacceptable, what blame do they have for the IP troubles? Google should pay, if it's deemed to be infringing, but the functionality should stay the same for the customer. Imagine this, someone coming to your house to hobble your product's functionality because another company sued the company you bought the product from. This is proof of lacking customer protection and leverage. I think Sonos's case is bullshit anyway, and I think this whole patent environment is ridiculous, but the approach they took to solve it is unethical.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Google doesn't and hasn't ever cared if their approach is ethical. It cares that this approach is legal (sometimes), and profitable (always). Do not expect ethics from big corporations.
- Handytinge 5y ago
  "Don't be evil"

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nosianu 5y ago

Sorry, but for this link I only get 404 Page Not Found We're sorry for any inconvenience. We can't find the page you're looking for. I would not say anything if it said "blocked for your IP/country", but it appears there is nothing any more behind that link. Was the article removed? EDIT: Ad-blocker (uBlock Origin) off and the page loads. I should have thought of that, there was a flicker of something else before the "not found". Still very strange to show a "404 Not Found" in retaliation for an ad-blocker instead of complaining about the latter.

alistairSH 5y ago
The article is appearing for me (US).
kop316 5y ago
Are you using uMatrix? I had to completely disable any scripts to get it to appear, or else I got a 404.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Oh, wow. Thank you, that worked for me.
  - kop316 5y ago
    Happy to help!

hluska 5y ago

If anyone is interested, this article lists five patents: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1191_notice01062022sgl.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices... They’re located here (the source is kind of funny): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9748647?oq=9%2c195%2c258 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9748647?oq=9%2c195%2c258 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en?oq=10%2c209%2c953 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10209953B2/en?oq=10%2c20... https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en?oq=9%2c219%2c959 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9219959B2/en?oq=9%2c219%... https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en?oq=8%2c588%2c949 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en?oq=8%2c588%... https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en?oq=10%2c439%2c896 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10439896B2/en?oq=10%2c43...

pizza234 5y ago
Thanks for posting. The article and it the one it references don't even mention the patents themselves, which is... not exactly great journalism.
invisible 5y ago
Wow, only the first of these seems like anything beyond the obvious necessity to synchronize _anything_ (grouping, pairing, synchronizing, settings for a group).

footlose_3815 5y ago

[dead]

mhb 5y ago

If only Google could settle this by creating some software for Sonos to make their interface usable.

boringg 5y ago

This is interesting from a google perspective. From an active Sonos user (4 speakers throughout the house) - I can say that as a product it seems to be getting better but is pretty tough to work with. It doesn't work well with Spotify unless you use their app (why would I want to add another app thats poorly designed for music) - and getting multiple speakers to work together is hit or miss (how ? It's supposed to be a core feature of the system). I'm torn as I don't really want to support Google - I also don't support Sonos it is a mediocre product wrapped up in a ton of marketing. In the end I guess I'm neutral.

snickerer 5y ago

The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it.

MereInterest 5y ago
Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.
- duxup 5y ago
  > having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
  - mbreese 5y ago
    Not intentionally, but they did sell something with a feature, only to remove that feature later. The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      In reality, Sonos is not even required to license the ‘technology’ and should they decide to do so, they can ask whatever price they want. Would you suggest there is some legal way to make Google liable for that?

kleiba 5y ago

For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?

Mikeb85 5y ago
The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?
- CodesInChaos 5y ago
  Wasn't that a design patent, which is closer to a trademark than an actual patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Well it obviously didn't hold up. IMO Apple had a copyright, maybe, it shouldn't have been patentable though. Design != technology so shouldn't be patentable.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      That’s why it’s a design patent, which is completely different concept from an invention patent. For one, it lasts forever.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  The "rounded corners" narrative needs to die. It wasn't just rounded corners. It was a combination of design features for a specific device that, among other things, included rounded corners.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

In the pre-Internet days, if company A sold a bunch of products to customers that violated company B's patent, company B could go after company A for money and an injunction against selling more products, but they couldn't send goons to break in to all of the customers' houses to damage the already-sold products. Why is the equivalent okay today?

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
because products are sold with an easy to break functionality of the product function added to them. If it were possible to know where all people lived with the product in the old days, and we had instant cheap teleportation of goons for breaking of products back then it would have just been the way things were done.
josefx 5y ago
Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over with online update at any time it feels like it and you have absolutely no legal expectation that your Google toy will still work tomorrow? Let alone have any of the features you bought it with?
- inetknght 5y ago
  > Because now you agree while signing up to Googles services that Google can and will screw you over Everyone says this. Unfortunately nobody reads the "contract". That alone means that most users do not fully understand what they're doing. On top of that, Google, and many tech companies, frequently misrepresent what they're offering.
  - carlmcqueen 5y ago
    Or even continually change it. So even if you agreed with original terms, to continue using it you have to keep accepting the changes.
jpambrun 5y ago
It's probably illegal in most jurisdiction. However, they have lost the case with Sonos and it's more economical/sensical for them to wait for the unlikely event of a class action lawsuit and pay in the more unlikely event of a loss. In other words, for google to pay damage to Sonos or consumer before having lost to consumer is non-sensical.

samwillis 5y ago

Discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841067

Jyaif 5y ago

One way around those bullshit patents is to let users program/script their devices, or install whatever software they want. Also, with good enough AIs we could work around many patents! Users could simply explain the AIs what they want them to do. Even if the action they teach infringe on a patent, nobody would be able to sue them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Pxtl 5y ago

Well, it's not like Google speakers make any sense even with this behavior. I keep mine generally ungrouped because I have one speaker per room. When I broadcast "Okay Google, broadcast: Hey, son, what do you want on your burger?" it's not exactly a stellar experience... It usually goes <long pause> 1st speaker: Hey, Son wh 2nd speaker: Hey, Son, what do you wan 3,4,5 in overlap: Hey, son, what do you want on your burger while my son is trying to answer the first one. I mean, you're all on the same wifi network this isn't really excusable behavior. So, Google: even with stolen technology you still kinda stink at this.

ibdf 5y ago
I use it to play music in multiple rooms... it works great.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  Mine's primarily used for intercom, messaging, and simple weather updates, where its main achievement is intercepting audio requests where it tries to answer things I want to do with my phone and thus blocks my phone from providing useful functionality. "I'm sorry I don't know how to do that" yes but my phone does so shut up and get out of the way. Multi-room music playing isn't something I've attempted. Do you have the speakers grouped together or keep them ungrouped? Does it do a good job of keeping them in sync? Because my biggest disappointments are generally in the poor coordination between the devices on the network not knowing which should handle a request - often I'll be right next to a speaker and make a request, and the one in the next room will reply, bewilderingly.
  - ibdf 5y ago
    I have several google minis, and a couple of google hubs (first gen). You need to group the devices and then tell google to play the songs in that group... it has worked really well for me - so I'm hoping I won't lose that functionality. If they are too close together the speakers struggle to figure out which one is closer to me . For instance, I used to have one in the living room and one in the kitchen (rooms that are close together without a separating wall) and often they will both answer my question. I ended up turning off the mic in one of them. Every now and then I use it as an intercom but with mixed results. My take on the google products is that they are far from perfect, but I really don't see anything better out there. I own several Apple products, but when it comes to smart home they have very little to offer, and Siri is far behind the google assistant.

peterclary 5y ago

I wonder if this also explains the weird >1 year delay for Denon adding the promised wireless speaker grouping support to its Soundbar 550.

cakoose 5y ago

For companies in Google's situation, a common tactic is to stop infringing ASAP and then find a workaround. Since patents are typically for mechanisms rather than features, Google might be able to implement a roundabout mechanism to achieve the same goal.

jpgvm 5y ago

Patent law is dumb. I hope Google goes nuclear on Sonos with their ridiculously huge patent portfolio just to show everyone just how petty and stupid the patent infringement system is.

boringg 5y ago

Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probably will impact my sonos experience (less R&D money to spend). Sorry to users that will be impacted - don't worry Google will come out with a volume adjuster in the near term.

Veen 5y ago
In my experience, Sonos hardware is great but their software is woefully bad: slow, buggy junk. But then, the same is true of Apple's stuff: HomePod hardware is very impressive, but Siri and Apple Music are crap.
- boringg 5y ago
  To be fair to Sonos if I want to use their app (that has terrible user experience) I think it would work 99% of the time. I didn't buy Sonos for their music software - I bought it to use Spotify over my speaker system. I don't use Sonos for music (and never will) I use Spotify (Not Spotify embedded in Sonos app) and its a constant cluster of a time to get it working on more than one speaker. Core functionality to their arguably largest user base.
- dirtybird04 5y ago
  Is Apple Music really crap? Their UI isn't the slickest but their service, audio quality, and music catalog is top notch. And unlike their Swedish counterparts, they aren't trying to push crappy podcasts on me to up their revenue
  - Veen 5y ago
    It's the UI latency that annoys me. I just opened it on my phone and had to wait 8 seconds before the "Listen Now" screen appeared. Same wait when I click on the "Browse". Plus lots of irritating UI deficiencies, especially on the Mac version.

jacknews 5y ago

Is the patent 'controlling speakers as a group' or the detailed mechanism that makes it possible? In the former case, it's not a patent, but just a feature. Patents need to be about how you accomplish features, and need to be non-obvious.

jcranberry 5y ago

Sonos makes products that are best in class?

The-Bus 5y ago
In terms of what's available in an mass market electronics store, sure. Is it best in class compared to a receiver set up with casting and $2,000 speakers? No, but that's not the problem Sonos is trying to solve.

godDLL 5y ago

I remember iPhone 4s (s is for speed). You'd buy one, and then Apple would "upgrade it" via software update removing the s. Which was the thing you bought it for. I wonder what that was about.

exodust 5y ago

I hope there's no patents for EQ settings. It took Sonos 3 years to finally add EQ to the play screen in the app. I'd hate for that to disappear because someone had the idea for: "group of sliders that cut a specific range of frequencies to improve sound quality".

splap 5y ago

I have a couple of these nest speakers. They are are wildly unreliable - buyer beware.

suifbwish 5y ago

They indeed are. Google search shows vastly worst results than what it’s engine is capable. This is a deep learning trick to train the search models better and better

humanistbot 5y ago

I have 10 nest mini speakers in my home, in various speaker groups. My main use cases are broken, because so many different apps play at wildly different volumes. I want to box them up, ship them to google, and get my money back. How do I do this?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
There is technically nothing stopping you from sending them to a Google office... you have their address. But there is no way they will give you your money back.

nohat 5y ago

How much did Sonos pay to get this article written? It's tripping over itself praising Sonos and repeating over and over that Google should pay Sonos.

easton_s 5y ago

Linus Tech Tips has a current video showing this kind if patent "non-obvious"-ness was broken long before the "with a computer" age. A mechanical calculator had to split the "divide" button into two buttons because another company had a patent on a "single button division" patent. https://youtu.be/axtQvkSpoto?t=470 https://youtu.be/axtQvkSpoto?t=470

s17n 5y ago

What's really frustrating about this situation for me is that Google has given up on audio (discontinued Chromecast Audio, no replacement for Home Max) but as a result of this bullshit, I also can't use my Google products with Sonos, the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well. Instead, Google's strategy is to partner with a bunch of legacy audio companies (https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-in/audio/ https://www.google.com/chromecast/built-in/audio/) where you just know that the firmware is going to be jank and the products will all eventually be discontinued, and in the long run these companies are dinosaurs and they are all going to die. I just clicked through to the NAD chromecast amp and instead of giving me a price and a "buy now" button, there is a "find a dealer" button. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

saiya-jin 5y ago
> the one 21st century company that is actually doing audio well I strongly disagree with this. You don't own your speakers which are completely dependent on manufacturer which can brick them permanently on a whim. Fuck that and fuck Sonos. That is not a definition of 'doing audio well in 21st century' in any meaningful sense. As for audio quality, there are companies making better sounding products that allow you to do whatever you want with their products and usually for much/at least a bit less.
- s17n 5y ago
  > You don't own your speakers which are completely dependent on manufacturer which can brick them permanently on a whim. Like I said, a 21st century company, with bad things that implies as well as the good things.
neoromantique 5y ago
I'd take a NAD amp over anything that Sonos sells any day of the week, thanks.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  and you can have my NAD amp over my dead body, though when I am dead, you can get it with a Slim Devices/Logitech Duet Receiver (Burr/Brown 24 bit DAC), which I'll also take over the current Sonos offerings.

kodah 5y ago

> Back in 2013, while Google was considering how it could make its music streaming service work on Sonos's speakers, the latter company gave the search giant an inside look at its technology. At the time, it didn't seem like a big deal. Google wasn't making speakers, and it wasn't in the smart home business at all. Did anyone lose their job?

markhahn 5y ago

The patent system is broken: these features are obvious and should not be protected.

g-technology 5y ago

How does Sonos have a patent on this when Squeezebox did speaker groups before Sonos was ever a company?

K0balt 5y ago

I mean, it sounds like a stupid patent, but if the court says so then it’s valid. We either live with the rule of law or we don’t. Also, we need to fix IP law, but I digress. But… wtf Google? Do you have some kind of “we don’t negotiate with people we stole from” ultimatum, or are you just trying to piss off the people that bought into your dystopian nightmare buttons?

bilalq 5y ago

I'm no fan of Google as a company, but it really sucks how patents are still being abused to the detriment of the average person. I wonder what the likelihood of retaliation is, since I'm sure Google has a much deeper patent catalog they could weaponize.

nikolay 5y ago

Boycott Sonos! I am not a fan of Google, but sometimes I don't get how companies like Sonos get patents on stuff that's not really an invention - it's called "common sense"!

dreamcompiler 5y ago

The main reason I (literally) threw my Nest thermostat in the trash was that Nest (Google) kept installing updates I couldn't veto, and without exception every update made the device worse. I disabled the wifi for a while but of course then I could no longer control the thermostat with my phone, so eventually I just replaced it with a dumb thermostat and I've not bought a Nest product since.

dusted 5y ago

"technology" yeah, like one control to adjust the volume on MORE THAN A SINGLE SPEAKER AT A TIME.. I think that feature is also on.. every single piece of audio equipment I've ever owned.. making it wireless is not even an innovation.

Handytinge 5y ago

I look forward to the class action against Google for this.