Sonos Suing Google For Patent Infringment

[Belac F]

17 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

This litigation strategy does not come without risks; not only are both Amazon and Google significantly bigger companies, Sonos is very heavily dependent on both companies to run it's business; it uses Google for advertising, and Amazon's servers to manage the back end, along with using Amazon's storefront to sell to customers.

Bruh that's the underatement of the century. Google could literaly just stop showing their ads, or bury their website in search results even if sonos wins. Also why would you give google sensitive information like that and not expect this to happen? It was nice knowing you, sonos.

[Scatology]

Sonos is so overpriced anyways. Not a big loss. 

[schwellmo92]

 

15 hours ago, Commodus said:

My beef isn't so much with the authenticity of the claims as that people are rushing to defend Google while assuming Sonos is the eeeeeevil patent troll.  Like they're letting their worship for Android and Chrome cloud their judgment.

Have you actually read the complaint? It reads pretty clearly as a troll move by Sonos. It's quite funny, whenever I defend Apple I get called and Apple fanboy, now apparently I'm also a Google fanboy. For the records, I hate Android (iOS FTW) but like Chrome. I have no allegiance to any hardware/software company, I pick what's best for me and will call out any company where I think they're behaving poorly.

[TechyBen]

18 hours ago, Commodus said:

My beef isn't so much with the authenticity of the claims as that people are rushing to defend Google while assuming Sonos is the eeeeeevil patent troll.  Like they're letting their worship for Android and Chrome cloud their judgment.

A broken clock can be right twice a day. If Google is not in the wrong in this case, they are not, if they are, they are. Just because Google did other things bad, does not mean we celebrate preventing good happening this time.

 

PS, should everyone block SONOS from putting mics in their speakers? Though to be honest, they are probably paying some pretty heavy patent royalties for that "tech". As IIRC everyone beat them to that "invention" already (Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Google, Amazon etc, SONOS has been the last to add a mic to their speakers).

 

That and, Google has so many patents, it's not hard for them to"find" something SONOS probably infringes on. That's the problem with patents and especially software patents (see Apple v Samsung, Qualcomm v Intel, Google v the rest of the world... CPU AIO patents, Sony/Nintend v the rumble controller patent troll).

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

 

Have you actually read the complaint? It reads pretty clearly as a troll move by Sonos. It's quite funny, whenever I defend Apple I get called and Apple fanboy, now apparently I'm also a Google fanboy. For the records, I hate Android (iOS FTW) but like Chrome. I have no allegiance to any hardware/software company, I pick what's best for me and will call out any company where I think they're behaving poorly.

It might read that way.  Doesn’t make it true.  Doesn’t make it not true either.  It depends on the validity of the claim.  For it to be true Sonos would have had to hand over IP to google knowing they would use it.  Google should never have taken the blueprints.  The original patent troll case was BSD.  In that situation the same argument was made.  The difference though is Berkeley created different things from those things making the IP their own.  This may or may not have happened with the Sonos/Google thing.  Something for a court to sort out.  If they didn’t use it bare Sonos is hosed.  It’s clearly a possible patent troll case.

[pas008]

If the code is copied for synchronisation of multiple speakers then clear violation by Google

 

 

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

 

Have you actually read the complaint? It reads pretty clearly as a troll move by Sonos. It's quite funny, whenever I defend Apple I get called and Apple fanboy, now apparently I'm also a Google fanboy. For the records, I hate Android (iOS FTW) but like Chrome. I have no allegiance to any hardware/software company, I pick what's best for me and will call out any company where I think they're behaving poorly.

Yes, I have, and no, it's not.

 

Sonos had been very clearly making commercial products based on its patents since 2002; it's not a patent troll that bought someone else's IP or is making up for a failing business (it's much smaller than Google, but still doing alright).  Not only that, but the complaint points out that Google knew about Sonos successfully suing Denon over the Heos wireless speaker system... and still decided that it shouldn't have to pay.  Whatever you think about the validity of the patents in the Denon suit, Sonos is both effectively obliged to act (there's a "use it or lose it" aspect to patent law) and can say that both sides know the patents survived in court.

 

And if Sonos is right that Google arbitrarily punished Sonos for bringing up royalties by effectively forcing it to reveal its product roadmap six months in advance... well, Sonos should get that total ban on Google hardware.  Even if you think Sonos' patent claims are frivolous, a company shouldn't retaliate by demanding the 'right' to spy on a company's product roadmap.

 

This isn't to say that Sonos is saintlike in its motivations.  Of course it's hoping to make a tidy sum from Google royalties, and it is the small fry in this situation.  But it has a much better case than an actual patent troll, especially given Google's irresponsible behaviour.

[Derkoli]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:16 PM, Mark Kaine said:

So,  I never heard of Sonus,  so this is about software?  

 

Also the fact someone uses "Google speakers" is beyond me,  to each their own of course,  I just find it weird, Google keeps "inventing" things there's no demand for (like Stadia) and suddenly it's a "thing"  and people buy it in droves because it's "on sale at Amazon".

 

(and then a year later are inevitably "disappointed" because the product they bought never made any sense) 

 

 

Sonos make multi room audio gear, like speakers and pre-amps to feed amplifiers. They make software and hardware, I own some of their stuff.

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

A broken clock can be right twice a day. If Google is not in the wrong in this case, they are not, if they are, they are. Just because Google did other things bad, does not mean we celebrate preventing good happening this time.

 

PS, should everyone block SONOS from putting mics in their speakers? Though to be honest, they are probably paying some pretty heavy patent royalties for that "tech". As IIRC everyone beat them to that "invention" already (Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Google, Amazon etc, SONOS has been the last to add a mic to their speakers).

 

That and, Google has so many patents, it's not hard for them to"find" something SONOS probably infringes on. That's the problem with patents and especially software patents (see Apple v Samsung, Qualcomm v Intel, Google v the rest of the world... CPU AIO patents, Sony/Nintend v the rumble controller patent troll).

But why do you imply Google the "good" one here?  Because you have a gut feeling about it?  Because Sonos caught some flak (to be fair, mostly deserved) for its Recycle Mode fiasco, and people are in an anti-Sonos mood right now?  Because Google makes enough nice things that we should trust it to do the right thing here?

 

As I pointed out minutes ago, Sonos points out that Google must have been fully aware of a successful lawsuit against Denon over wireless speaker patents, and that Google punished Sonos for asking about royalties by forcing it to divulge product details six months in advance.  Assuming those are true (they're both pretty easy to verify in court), that suggests Google is anything but the innocent dove.  Not that Sonos' hands are perfectly clean -- just that its case appears to have considerably more weight than some here would care to admit.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

But why do you imply Google the "good" one here?  Because you have a gut feeling about it?  Because Sonos caught some flak (to be fair, mostly deserved) for its Recycle Mode fiasco, and people are in an anti-Sonos mood right now?  Because Google makes enough nice things that we should trust it to do the right thing here?

 

As I pointed out minutes ago, Sonos points out that Google must have been fully aware of a successful lawsuit against Denon over wireless speaker patents, and that Google punished Sonos for asking about royalties by forcing it to divulge product details six months in advance.  Assuming those are true (they're both pretty easy to verify in court), that suggests Google is anything but the innocent dove.  Not that Sonos' hands are perfectly clean -- just that its case appears to have considerably more weight than some here would care to admit.

Where did I imply Google are good? Someone claiming "I own the right to drawings of mice" might be stupid, even if it's Google who "stole" the drawings of mice (though thankfully, Disney only own one mouse! ).

Likewise, Sonos are making a claim Google stole the idea of mesh wifi, or phone controlled volume. Google *might* have stolen the mesh wifi/code for volume control. Seems rather strange for them to do that, also seems stupid to copyright it IMO. But that's how companies currently work.

 

Remember, Google only became the monopoly and giant abusive company they are now because they copyrighted/patented the algorithm for the best results for search data via creaming off user analytics. (IIRC it stores the most user clicked/shortest results in a table, and makes a nice web of them, and that math they patented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents (87 million patents!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

They literally patented "the site with the most clicks goes to the top of the results page". 

I have little sympathy for the competition at that time, as they were useless and full of spam/scam/malware and paid links (though Google has a few of those still). Now? Now the patent might have lapsed or there might be other ways.

Quote

PageRank and all associated patents are expired.

 

[Evanair]

On 1/9/2020 at 1:29 AM, schwellmo92 said:

This is total bullshit, their entire case is that Google made devices with features that Sonos devices had prior. That’s how the world works, someone makes a good product and then someone makes a competitor. Claiming that you have patents for configuring a speaker on a WLAN, synchronising music and adjusting volume as a group is a joke on Sonos part.

You've never quite heard of Apple have you?

 

As for these devices... To get started with Sonos you need to spend about a Grand to take advantage of any of their stuff.  With Google and Amazon, it's about 100. 

 

Sonos priced a luxury item. They should expect luxury sales. Or in this case less when I really don't see the ROI even though I can afford to deck out my entire house in these things, I don't see the point.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

Where did I imply Google are good? Someone claiming "I own the right to drawings of mice" might be stupid, even if it's Google who "stole" the drawings of mice (though thankfully, Disney only own one mouse! ).

Likewise, Sonos are making a claim Google stole the idea of mesh wifi, or phone controlled volume. Google *might* have stolen the mesh wifi/code for volume control. Seems rather strange for them to do that, also seems stupid to copyright it IMO. But that's how companies currently work.

 

Remember, Google only became the monopoly and giant abusive company they are now because they copyrighted/patented the algorithm for the best results for search data via creaming off user analytics. (IIRC it stores the most user clicked/shortest results in a table, and makes a nice web of them, and that math they patented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents (87 million patents!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

They literally patented "the site with the most clicks goes to the top of the results page". 

I have little sympathy for the competition at that time, as they were useless and full of spam/scam/malware and paid links (though Google has a few of those still). Now? Now the patent might have lapsed or there might be other ways.

 

It's this bit: "just because Google did other things bad, does not mean we celebrate preventing good happening this time."  That implies that it would be best if Google prevailed -- sorry if that's not what you meant.

 

As it stands, Sonos only really needs one out of five patent claims to stick for Google to face at least some repercussions!

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Evanair said:

You've never quite heard of Apple have you?

 

As for these devices... To get started with Sonos you need to spend about a Grand to take advantage of any of their stuff.  With Google and Amazon, it's about 100. 

 

Sonos priced a luxury item. They should expect luxury sales. Or in this case less when I really don't see the ROI even though I can afford to deck out my entire house in these things, I don't see the point.

You absolutely don't need to spend $1,000 to take advantage of their system.  A Sonos One costs $199; the One SL costs less if you don't need built-in mics.  You could have three Ones in your home and still come well under that $1K mark.

 

I'm honestly baffled as to where you got the notion that you need to drop that much money to participate in Sonos' ecosystem.  For that kind of money you could get two Play:5s, or five Ones!

[Evanair]

13 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You absolutely don't need to spend $1,000 to take advantage of their system.  A Sonos One costs $199; the One SL costs less if you don't need built-in mics.  You could have three Ones in your home and still come well under that $1K mark.

 

I'm honestly baffled as to where you got the notion that you need to drop that much money to participate in Sonos' ecosystem.  For that kind of money you could get two Play:5s, or five Ones!

Their two room pro set starts at a grand. Plus their outdoor set which is 500. And their sub is another 600.

 

Yes you could get their basic line, which for that many rooms would cost 600ish again.

 

Their ecosystem is about mixed speakers following you around the house for seamless play, not one off speakers 

[Commodus]

8 hours ago, Evanair said:

Their two room pro set starts at a grand. Plus their outdoor set which is 500. And their sub is another 600.

 

Yes you could get their basic line, which for that many rooms would cost 600ish again.

 

Their ecosystem is about mixed speakers following you around the house for seamless play, not one off speakers 

But it's not really like that anymore.

 

Yeah, the ideal is a multi-room setup, but remember that the Sonos One is basically a higher-end alternative to smart speakers.  The Beam and Playbase are soundbars.  Sonos would no doubt love it if you had them strewn throughout your home, but I don't think it's so naive as to assume that it can upsell everyone into buying a speaker for every section of the home.

[Evanair]

15 hours ago, Commodus said:

But it's not really like that anymore.

 

Yeah, the ideal is a multi-room setup, but remember that the Sonos One is basically a higher-end alternative to smart speakers.  The Beam and Playbase are soundbars.  Sonos would no doubt love it if you had them strewn throughout your home, but I don't think it's so naive as to assume that it can upsell everyone into buying a speaker for every section of the home.

We can agree that a single setup isn't a bad thing for the speaker, but that's not Sonos brand nor selling points according to their marketing. They offer a ecosystem as the branding with speakers to support it, not necessarily a speaker to support their ecosystem.

 

It's very similar to how Apple defends their Apple ecosystem as making repairs to their systems turn the systems into PCs and ruin the Apple Ecosystem. It's not about the hardware so much as the software and IP within the platforms.

 

If Google and Amazon had marketed their speakers as such, Sonos would have a good case that they were copying their IP, but they are talking about one off speakers, which isn't Sonos niche USP. This is where Sonos will have to make it's case.

[TechyBen]

On 1/10/2020 at 9:38 PM, Commodus said:

It's this bit: "just because Google did other things bad, does not mean we celebrate preventing good happening this time."  That implies that it would be best if Google prevailed -- sorry if that's not what you meant.

 

As it stands, Sonos only really needs one out of five patent claims to stick for Google to face at least some repercussions!

Yeah, the other stands too (but no one fanboys on that comment I made) of "Sonos has done some rough stuff too, but I'm not going to celebrate them getting done over by Google" (to paraphrase).

 

So yeah, people are deciding I'm not being balanced, because they want to decide I'm not being balanced.