6 ms·

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. I

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?
    - mbreese 5y ago
      Well, Google has already infringed on the devices sold. So, yes they are liable for that. For new devices, Google wouldn’t need to include the same functionality — new customers won’t be expecting the functionality. What I’m curious about is why they removed the functionality from existing devices. That just opens them up to another lawsuit, this time from customers (for bait and switch). I’m sympathetic… they are in a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. And this is probably the cheapest way out.
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      Yes, in the same way that the manufacturer of a physical product may be sued for damages. Suppose I buy a pair of scissors. Fancy new scissors, with some whiz-bang feature that makes them really cool scissors that can cut through anything. Now, the manufacturer is sued for violating a patent, and loses the case. The manufacturer may end up paying a fine to the patent holder. The manufacturer may no longer be allowed to sell those scissors, or to sell repair kits for those scissors. But the manufacturer may not break into my house, take the scissors out of my drawer, and modify them. I've bought them, and the manufacturer no longer has any right to change them. The problem isn't just that Google removed a feature from an existing product. The problem is also that Google has the ability to do so in the first place.
- sp332 5y ago
  I don't think it was fraud specifically, but having sold something they weren't allowed to sell, they should refund the customers who are losing the features.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Google is attempting to mitigate one wrong by performing another. Google is not allowed to implement feature covered by another company's patent. Google is also not allowed to sell a product advertised as having a specific feature and then later remove that feature. The two are independent. Having lost the lawsuit, Google's proposed remedy is to "undo" the patent infringement by removing the patented feature. This may reduce the harm to Sonos, but actively harms people who purchased the devices.

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?
  - mbreese 5y ago
    Well, Google has already infringed on the devices sold. So, yes they are liable for that. For new devices, Google wouldn’t need to include the same functionality — new customers won’t be expecting the functionality. What I’m curious about is why they removed the functionality from existing devices. That just opens them up to another lawsuit, this time from customers (for bait and switch). I’m sympathetic… they are in a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. And this is probably the cheapest way out.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    Yes, in the same way that the manufacturer of a physical product may be sued for damages. Suppose I buy a pair of scissors. Fancy new scissors, with some whiz-bang feature that makes them really cool scissors that can cut through anything. Now, the manufacturer is sued for violating a patent, and loses the case. The manufacturer may end up paying a fine to the patent holder. The manufacturer may no longer be allowed to sell those scissors, or to sell repair kits for those scissors. But the manufacturer may not break into my house, take the scissors out of my drawer, and modify them. I've bought them, and the manufacturer no longer has any right to change them. The problem isn't just that Google removed a feature from an existing product. The problem is also that Google has the ability to do so in the first place.
sp332 5y ago
I don't think it was fraud specifically, but having sold something they weren't allowed to sell, they should refund the customers who are losing the features.
MereInterest 5y ago
Google is attempting to mitigate one wrong by performing another. Google is not allowed to implement feature covered by another company's patent. Google is also not allowed to sell a product advertised as having a specific feature and then later remove that feature. The two are independent. Having lost the lawsuit, Google's proposed remedy is to "undo" the patent infringement by removing the patented feature. This may reduce the harm to Sonos, but actively harms people who purchased the devices.