11 ms·

Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

135 points by tjlav5 3y ago

ehsankia 3y ago
Alsup strikes again! Same judge who presided over Oracle v Google, and Google v Uber/Levandowski.
- suddenexample 3y ago
  So refreshing to see some semblance of sanity in these cases...
  - jkaplowitz 3y ago
    Haskell is his middle name… literally! (Okay, not technically relevant, but it is an amazing coincidence. He does have a programming hobby, albeit not using the Haskell language.)
- monocasa 3y ago
  I just wish he was on the Court of Appeals. His notably sane judgments have a habit of being struck down once backroom politics get involved.
  - sethrin 3y ago
    Alsup is semi-retired since 2021.
photonbeam 3y ago
Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted
- echelon 3y ago
  To protect against trolls, sure. To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure. In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music. I'm tired of Google, Apple, and Meta winning by default. They have unlimited resources to clone startups' entire products. Big companies should be way more vulnerable to disruption.
  - maven29 3y ago
    You have to consider the fact that workarounds are dime a dozen. In any case, startups aren't exactly in a position to gamble away their endowment in a court battle, which can trivially get stretched out by their megacorp opponents until they run out of cash.
  - fsh 3y ago
    I don't see how patents on trivial stuff like synchronized playback are supposed to help startups. The big corporations are sitting on enormous piles of those which makes entering their markets extremely risky.
    - fidotron 3y ago
      Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.
      - cr3ative 3y ago
        It might not be trivial to achieve technically, but at the point you have multiple speakers dotted around a multi-room space, making them all play the same thing in sync is a fairly obvious idea, which I think is more what is being argued here.
        NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Depends how broadly it’s claimed. A detailed claim that gets into the technical specifics of how this is implemented might well be nonobvious. A broad claim that covers all possible ways of synchronizing audio is a tougher sell.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  any interest in going as far as changing that article of the constitution? I feel it is almost unworkable enough I don’t feel as if enough important people care enough the same way as irrelevant people would care relevant because the only populist legislative changes that occur are the ones that coincidentally match what the elite class was already interested in
  - photonbeam 3y ago
    It doesn’t teed changing The constitution doesn’t insist that patents exist, just that congress is the one who regulates them if they do
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      “for limited times” in article 1 section 8 clause 8 is what needs changing and clarification, by amendment
fbdab103 3y ago
>A California federal judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict for wireless-audio company Sonos (SONO.O) against rival Google (GOOGL.O) after finding that the Sonos patents at the heart of the case were unenforceable. I am used to seeing statements that these legal cases cost $$$$ in legal fees, so I am curious what is likely to have been the spend on either side of the case. A $32.5 million verdict is likely significantly lower than Sonos had hoped. What was that likely to have been as a ratio of legal fees? Would Google have hired outside consul to help defend or is the in house staff sufficient to handle the case?
- dmazzoni 3y ago
  In case it wasn't clear - a jury awarded Sonos $32.5 million, but the judge just threw that out. Sonos gets nothing. It's quite possible that both sides spent far more than $32.5 million on lawyers, but it made sense to fight. Sonos, because they wanted to sue others and not just Google. Google, because they didn't want to set a precedent that they'd give in when they hadn't actually infringed on anything.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    The 32 million is pocket change. What's important is whether the import ban on infringing Google devices is related to this judgement, or if that was a separate case.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - havnagiggle 3y ago
    It also materially changed the experience of Google's products for the worse. I am curious how that might have impacted their bottom line (as small as home devices are to their business).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seanhunter 3y ago
AS someone who was an early fan of Sonos I really hate what they have become and am delighted this got tossed.
- infecto 3y ago
  I know they made some funky decision in recent history. What are the points that you dislike about them? Curious as someone who is always on the fence about their products but still use them.
  - malfist 3y ago
    They treat their hardware like it's a phone or computer, something to upgrade every year or two and old versions discarded. They have no problem bricking it in a couple of years and expect you to buy a newer version. Perfectly functional hardware. This last round of bricking was to bring about a faster CPU in the speakers, as if that matters. Didn't add features, just faster CPU. Their support is pretty atrocious. They will always blame your router for not handling "point to point internal networking" correctly, as if that's a real possibility. They tell you you have to make one of their speakers your router and your current router needs to be put in AP mode. Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      > Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers. They're streaming sound, not high bitrate video.
      - malfist 3y ago
        Oh I completely agree that's what they should be doing. But support wants you to put your router as an access point behind a sonos speaker, meaning the sonos speaker has to be capable of handing all your internet traffic as well as play music. Really a stupid design choice.
  - 3y ago
jdhendrickson 3y ago
I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.
- andrewstuart2 3y ago
  git revert revert-me-if-sonos-tossed
- echelon 3y ago
  This sucks for Sonos. Google can clone the Sonos hardware and kick Sonos off of YouTube Music. Which is exactly what they tried doing before. Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. The world shouldn't revolve around five tech giants.
  - lights0123 3y ago
    > Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. Which would be great, except as the ruling states, Sonos didn't introduce the feature in the market until 5 years after Google did: > The essence of this order is that the patents issued after an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay of over thirteen years by the patent holder, Sonos, Inc. Sonos filed the provisional application from which the patents in suit claim priority in 2006...Google then began introducing its own products that practiced the invention in 2015. Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line).
    - Spare_account 3y ago
      >Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line). What was the feature that Sonos introduced in 2020 that was being fought over?
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Apparently synchronized speakers grouped to zones, with the possibility for the zones to overlap so that one speaker could be in multiple zones rather than just one. To quote the judge: > Then, in 2019, Sonos filed continuation applications for the patents in suit. To get around the prior art, Sonos sought to patent zone scenes with a new twist: overlap. With overlap, a zone player could be a member of more than one zone scene at the same time It turns out that what Sonos did was even more scummy than implied by lights0123. In addition to this being something Sonos didn't implement until much later, it was actually Google who first suggested this idea to Sonos. > This was thirteen years after Sonos filed the provisional application, but also five years after Google had itself disclosed overlapping zone scenes to Sonos, and four years after Google had released products that implemented the feature. It's interesting to read the comments from half a year ago with this knowledge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36093764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36093764
pizza234 3y ago
For those who'd like to read the official document(s), if I understand correctly, the order can be found here, at the bottom: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-sonos-inc/?page=6 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-s....
isaacfrond 3y ago
Here is a link to the order: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20TRIAL%20ruling.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/...
petepete 3y ago
If this means I'll be able to cast to my array of Sonos devices, good. I love Sonos but that's a glaring omission. It feels like they're stuck in the past (plus their devices still don't support RSTP).

135 points by tjlav5 3y ago

ehsankia 3y ago

Alsup strikes again! Same judge who presided over Oracle v Google, and Google v Uber/Levandowski.

suddenexample 3y ago
So refreshing to see some semblance of sanity in these cases...
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  Haskell is his middle name… literally! (Okay, not technically relevant, but it is an amazing coincidence. He does have a programming hobby, albeit not using the Haskell language.)
monocasa 3y ago
I just wish he was on the Court of Appeals. His notably sane judgments have a habit of being struck down once backroom politics get involved.
- sethrin 3y ago
  Alsup is semi-retired since 2021.

photonbeam 3y ago

Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted

echelon 3y ago
To protect against trolls, sure. To protect giant companies against small startups that are trying with all of their might? I'm not so sure. In this case, Google can now clone Sonos' hardware and synchronized play algorithms and block Sonos from accessing YouTube Music. I'm tired of Google, Apple, and Meta winning by default. They have unlimited resources to clone startups' entire products. Big companies should be way more vulnerable to disruption.
- maven29 3y ago
  You have to consider the fact that workarounds are dime a dozen. In any case, startups aren't exactly in a position to gamble away their endowment in a court battle, which can trivially get stretched out by their megacorp opponents until they run out of cash.
- fsh 3y ago
  I don't see how patents on trivial stuff like synchronized playback are supposed to help startups. The big corporations are sitting on enormous piles of those which makes entering their markets extremely risky.
  - fidotron 3y ago
    Synchronized playback is absolutely not trivial.
    - cr3ative 3y ago
      It might not be trivial to achieve technically, but at the point you have multiple speakers dotted around a multi-room space, making them all play the same thing in sync is a fairly obvious idea, which I think is more what is being argued here.
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Depends how broadly it’s claimed. A detailed claim that gets into the technical specifics of how this is implemented might well be nonobvious. A broad claim that covers all possible ways of synchronizing audio is a tougher sell.
yieldcrv 3y ago
any interest in going as far as changing that article of the constitution? I feel it is almost unworkable enough I don’t feel as if enough important people care enough the same way as irrelevant people would care relevant because the only populist legislative changes that occur are the ones that coincidentally match what the elite class was already interested in
- photonbeam 3y ago
  It doesn’t teed changing The constitution doesn’t insist that patents exist, just that congress is the one who regulates them if they do
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    “for limited times” in article 1 section 8 clause 8 is what needs changing and clarification, by amendment

fbdab103 3y ago

>A California federal judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict for wireless-audio company Sonos (SONO.O) against rival Google (GOOGL.O) after finding that the Sonos patents at the heart of the case were unenforceable. I am used to seeing statements that these legal cases cost $$$$ in legal fees, so I am curious what is likely to have been the spend on either side of the case. A $32.5 million verdict is likely significantly lower than Sonos had hoped. What was that likely to have been as a ratio of legal fees? Would Google have hired outside consul to help defend or is the in house staff sufficient to handle the case?

dmazzoni 3y ago
In case it wasn't clear - a jury awarded Sonos $32.5 million, but the judge just threw that out. Sonos gets nothing. It's quite possible that both sides spent far more than $32.5 million on lawyers, but it made sense to fight. Sonos, because they wanted to sue others and not just Google. Google, because they didn't want to set a precedent that they'd give in when they hadn't actually infringed on anything.
- askvictor 3y ago
  The 32 million is pocket change. What's important is whether the import ban on infringing Google devices is related to this judgement, or if that was a separate case.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- havnagiggle 3y ago
  It also materially changed the experience of Google's products for the worse. I am curious how that might have impacted their bottom line (as small as home devices are to their business).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

seanhunter 3y ago

AS someone who was an early fan of Sonos I really hate what they have become and am delighted this got tossed.

infecto 3y ago
I know they made some funky decision in recent history. What are the points that you dislike about them? Curious as someone who is always on the fence about their products but still use them.
- malfist 3y ago
  They treat their hardware like it's a phone or computer, something to upgrade every year or two and old versions discarded. They have no problem bricking it in a couple of years and expect you to buy a newer version. Perfectly functional hardware. This last round of bricking was to bring about a faster CPU in the speakers, as if that matters. Didn't add features, just faster CPU. Their support is pretty atrocious. They will always blame your router for not handling "point to point internal networking" correctly, as if that's a real possibility. They tell you you have to make one of their speakers your router and your current router needs to be put in AP mode. Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    > Honestly they probably needed the faster CPU because they expect any of their speakers to be used a routers. They're streaming sound, not high bitrate video.
    - malfist 3y ago
      Oh I completely agree that's what they should be doing. But support wants you to put your router as an access point behind a sonos speaker, meaning the sonos speaker has to be capable of handing all your internet traffic as well as play music. Really a stupid design choice.
- 3y ago

jdhendrickson 3y ago

I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.

andrewstuart2 3y ago
git revert revert-me-if-sonos-tossed
echelon 3y ago
This sucks for Sonos. Google can clone the Sonos hardware and kick Sonos off of YouTube Music. Which is exactly what they tried doing before. Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. The world shouldn't revolve around five tech giants.
- lights0123 3y ago
  > Patents should benefit small companies with actual products in the market. Which would be great, except as the ruling states, Sonos didn't introduce the feature in the market until 5 years after Google did: > The essence of this order is that the patents issued after an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay of over thirteen years by the patent holder, Sonos, Inc. Sonos filed the provisional application from which the patents in suit claim priority in 2006...Google then began introducing its own products that practiced the invention in 2015. Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line).
  - Spare_account 3y ago
    >Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line). What was the feature that Sonos introduced in 2020 that was being fought over?
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Apparently synchronized speakers grouped to zones, with the possibility for the zones to overlap so that one speaker could be in multiple zones rather than just one. To quote the judge: > Then, in 2019, Sonos filed continuation applications for the patents in suit. To get around the prior art, Sonos sought to patent zone scenes with a new twist: overlap. With overlap, a zone player could be a member of more than one zone scene at the same time It turns out that what Sonos did was even more scummy than implied by lights0123. In addition to this being something Sonos didn't implement until much later, it was actually Google who first suggested this idea to Sonos. > This was thirteen years after Sonos filed the provisional application, but also five years after Google had itself disclosed overlapping zone scenes to Sonos, and four years after Google had released products that implemented the feature. It's interesting to read the comments from half a year ago with this knowledge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36093764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36093764

pizza234 3y ago

For those who'd like to read the official document(s), if I understand correctly, the order can be found here, at the bottom: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-sonos-inc/?page=6 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-s....

isaacfrond 3y ago

Here is a link to the order: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20TRIAL%20ruling.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/...

petepete 3y ago

If this means I'll be able to cast to my array of Sonos devices, good. I love Sonos but that's a glaring omission. It feels like they're stuck in the past (plus their devices still don't support RSTP).