10 ms·

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 gr

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...
  - mattmcknight 5y ago
    While the implementation of synchronization is not obvious, the concept of doing it is. They shouldn't be able to patent the entire concept of allowing multiple speaker volumes to be adjusted with a single slider (which is what everyone is complaining about), as the implementation of that is trivial. Maybe that isn't what they've actually done though...maybe Google is keeping their synchronization stuff, but breaking the volume change since Sonos made the mistake of combining them in a single claim. That way Google can avoid violating that claim by not doing the volume part.
  - nailer 5y ago
    Latency was literally the first thing I considered and I haven’t done any audio work since the nineties.
- smichel17 5y ago
  Or to anyone who uses an old-fashioned audio receiver ("amp") with wired speakers. Turn the dial, both speakers change volume. Obviously what I want. I have not read anything besides this article, though, so it's possible the patent is being misinterpreted here.
dhosek 5y ago
From the article, I gathered that the patent isn't on the idea of doing so but the specific implementation. In short, Google took the knowledge they gained from the internals of how the Sonos speakers worked and copied that directly. This is a bit different from, say a patent on a virtual shopping cart where it's more the idea than how it's implemented.
- readams 5y ago
  All patents are on the specific implementation, but patent attorneys work hard to ensure that the claims in the patent (the only part that matters) cover as broad an area as possible.
- neuronic 5y ago
  Yep, Google just blatantly copied Sonos engineering like some Chinese scammer and expects to get away with it.
Bud 5y ago
Might be good to read the patents before posting this comment. The patents in the suit are far, far more detailed than Inc's throwaway one-line description in this article. Sonos' tech here also involves seamless automatic wireless setup and automatically assessing relative speaker volume for a given space, and all kinds of other things. If you've set up a group of Sonos speakers, versus any of the competitors, you know how much better their tech is. It's not merely "ability to connect speakers in groups". Inc just did a terrible job here.
- mattmcknight 5y ago
  If the patent didn't cover adjusting the volume for a group of speakers, why did Google have to disable it? While the patent portfolio did include other things, Google is being forced to disable the basic, obvious feature.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    Google is not being forced to disable this feature, Google decided to. They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature like they did, after all.
    - mattmcknight 5y ago
      > They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature That's an assumption. You don't know how much Sonos was asking. In addition, companies can choose to not license a patent to their competitors.
      - zaarn 5y ago
        No that's not the problem. Google already implemented the feature and made money of it. They do owe royalties to Sonos.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    The patents did cover controlling volume across the group, but there was more to it (see the 5 patents linked elsewhere in this discussion).

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...
- mattmcknight 5y ago
  While the implementation of synchronization is not obvious, the concept of doing it is. They shouldn't be able to patent the entire concept of allowing multiple speaker volumes to be adjusted with a single slider (which is what everyone is complaining about), as the implementation of that is trivial. Maybe that isn't what they've actually done though...maybe Google is keeping their synchronization stuff, but breaking the volume change since Sonos made the mistake of combining them in a single claim. That way Google can avoid violating that claim by not doing the volume part.
- nailer 5y ago
  Latency was literally the first thing I considered and I haven’t done any audio work since the nineties.
smichel17 5y ago
Or to anyone who uses an old-fashioned audio receiver ("amp") with wired speakers. Turn the dial, both speakers change volume. Obviously what I want. I have not read anything besides this article, though, so it's possible the patent is being misinterpreted here.

dhosek 5y ago

From the article, I gathered that the patent isn't on the idea of doing so but the specific implementation. In short, Google took the knowledge they gained from the internals of how the Sonos speakers worked and copied that directly. This is a bit different from, say a patent on a virtual shopping cart where it's more the idea than how it's implemented.

readams 5y ago
All patents are on the specific implementation, but patent attorneys work hard to ensure that the claims in the patent (the only part that matters) cover as broad an area as possible.
neuronic 5y ago
Yep, Google just blatantly copied Sonos engineering like some Chinese scammer and expects to get away with it.

Bud 5y ago

Might be good to read the patents before posting this comment. The patents in the suit are far, far more detailed than Inc's throwaway one-line description in this article. Sonos' tech here also involves seamless automatic wireless setup and automatically assessing relative speaker volume for a given space, and all kinds of other things. If you've set up a group of Sonos speakers, versus any of the competitors, you know how much better their tech is. It's not merely "ability to connect speakers in groups". Inc just did a terrible job here.

mattmcknight 5y ago
If the patent didn't cover adjusting the volume for a group of speakers, why did Google have to disable it? While the patent portfolio did include other things, Google is being forced to disable the basic, obvious feature.
- zaarn 5y ago
  Google is not being forced to disable this feature, Google decided to. They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature like they did, after all.
  - mattmcknight 5y ago
    > They could have paid royalties to Sonos for implementing the feature That's an assumption. You don't know how much Sonos was asking. In addition, companies can choose to not license a patent to their competitors.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      No that's not the problem. Google already implemented the feature and made money of it. They do owe royalties to Sonos.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  The patents did cover controlling volume across the group, but there was more to it (see the 5 patents linked elsewhere in this discussion).