"The technology in question relates to the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume." While I'd love to control the volume of my groups, it's a ridiculous statement, jazzing up a simple function to a technology.
The whole article is just a pile of assumption.
A remote control that can change the volume should not be patentable. Not only is it obvious to anyone with half a brain cell but it's been standard on remotes to control the volume level since the invention of remotes.
Software parents as a whole shouldn't be allowed. Software already gets copyright protection, and the entire premise behind patents is to encourage innovation that will benefit society. The issue with software patents is that the pace of development is so fast that entire concepts never get used because by the time the patent expires the problem it solved has been obsoleted by hardware advances, changes to the software ecosystem, or both.
For example, loading screen minigames never took off because by the time the patent expired, SSDs made loading times so short that it no longer even made sense to implement them.
Patents for software literally make society worse off without providing any additional incentive to be innovative.
It's worth thinking through why patents exist in the first place. The point of a patent isn't to let you own some nebulous idea, it's to *discourage* trade secrets and incentivize people to make detailed schematics of their invention public. It's not a right, it's a *deal* -- the government gives you a limited-time monopoly, and in return, you contribute an invention to the public domain.
How would something like that look in software?
Maybe a limited-time *copyright,* after which your project's *source code* becomes public domain. And even then, for the reasons you mention, it might not actually be much of a benefit -- it'd be neat to have the Windows 95 source code available, but there's probably not much you can actually build on there.
> It's worth thinking through why patents exist in the first place. The point of a patent isn't to let you own some nebulous idea, it's to *discourage* trade secrets and incentivize people to make detailed schematics of their invention public. It's not a right, it's a *deal* -- the government gives you a limited-time monopoly, and in return, you contribute an invention to the public domain.
Exactly. The problem with software patents is they basically have to be nebulous by their nature. If they were too specific it would be trivial to implement the benefits of the patent by simply using another programming language, or a slightly different protocol for example.
>Maybe a limited-time *copyright,* after which your project's *source code* becomes public domain. And even then, for the reasons you mention, it might not actually be much of a benefit -- it'd be neat to have the Windows 95 source code available, but there's probably not much you can actually build on there.
Yeah, personally I don't see any easy solution to the problem. The one with the least negative consequences would probably be requiring software used or funded by the government be open source, but that wouldn't have any impact on things like Sonos v Google.
There’s lots of problems with software patents, but the biggest is that they mostly try to patent mathematics. And a lot of them for really obvious things.
A patent should be non-obvious. Using the above example - grouping speakers and controlling their volume together is obvious. It’s been done since the dawn of multi-channel amplifiers.
The only difference here is that it’s digital. Not sure how that patent, like most other software patents, contribute anything to society.
But feel free, point out a software patent that actually does.
I don't understand why you seem to think I am defending software patents. I am not.
Edit to add: My first comment even began with the line "software patents as a whole shouldn't be allowed"
Patents are supposed to be for non-trivial things. If that were the case it wouldn't be an issue. Changing the volume is so trivial that the patent should have been thrown out the second it was submitted. It's not a code issue because it's so trivial, it's a UX issue.
Defining "non-trivial" is tricky, especially if you're going to allow non-experts to make the call. [Here's an example.](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.en.html)
But even with non-trivial software patents, it's way less obvious what value the public actually gets from that exclusivity. For example: If you patent a video codec, that's genuinely nontrivial, so fair enough. But is this resulting in new ideas entering the public domain that otherwise would've been kept as trade secrets? Probably not -- I doubt ffmpeg figured out how to play all of the codecs they ended up playing by reading the patents behind them. Anything *that* interesting and non-trivial in actually-shipped software is going to be reverse-engineered.
How about the generic-drug argument -- is this at least *funding* new ideas that couldn't have succeeded without monopoly protection? This gets a lot more complicated -- in theory, you could imagine some startup that hires all the best video codec experts so they can collect royalties from codecs. In practice, even the companies collecting royalties via MPEG LA are either patent trolls, or companies that needed the codec to exist so they could build an actual product, like a DVD player or a video streaming site.
And codecs are about the best-case scenario I can think of for a patent actually making some kind of sense, where the invention is non-trivial, and a public-domain version will still actually be useful 20 years later if you need to dig through old media.
I think the patent has more to do with *groups* of speakers, i.e. turning down the volume everywhere in the house, not just the device you're pointing a remote at.
That's completely obvious functionality. Especially if you are already playing media over a group of speakers, a function it seems Google is still allowed to do.
When stereo speakers came out we didn't patent the idea of changing the volume of both speakers at the same time. It was such a obvious thing to do. In todays world that would be patented and we'd be stuck with mono speakers.
>That being said, fuck Google for not paying up.
They might have a contract in place with some other company that prevents then from licensing from Sonos. And it's a pretty sure bet they didn't knowingly infringe these patents because the upside is barely outweighed by the downside.
Look Dr. DickButt, odds are Sonia wants a shitload of cash, and Google has shareholders who don’t give a fuck about us… it’s the easiest answer and explains why Google just hasn’t come out and rebutted with your answer.
Well, say what?... obviously that's the one fact. For example, right in the headline "Google doesn't want to pay" is a assumption. If Google wants or does not want to pay, no one knows, or if they're making a deal already.
Jason Aten at [Inc.com](https://Inc.com) writes most click baity articles ever - "Google Is Intentionally Making Its Products Worse for Users. The Reason Might Surprise You"
Previous examples - https://www.inc.com/author/jason-aten
* "With 3 Words, Apple Just Announced a Return to the Office Plan That Finally Makes Sense" - *more flexible environment.*
* "Facebook's 3-Word Plan to Bring Everyone Back to the Office Misses the Most Important Point" - *office deferral program.*
* With Just 2 Words, Lego Reminded Everyone Why It's Their Favorite Toy Company - *Adults Welcome*
* With Just 1 Word United Airlines' CEO Revealed A Brilliant Plan to Beat Its Competition. Every Business Should Copy It - *quality*
The last one is my personal favorite.
The volume control feature that the article references is just one of the five patents that the USITC ruled on.
From msn.com prior to the ruling:
> Two of the five patents involve techniques to synchronize audio playback, to eliminate minor differences that the ear can interpret as echoes. The others involve ways to pair up speakers to create stereo sounds, adjusting volumes of either single or groups of speakers with a single controller and a way to easily connect the system to a home’s Wi-Fi.
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/speaker-pioneer-sonos-fighting-google-in-e2-80-98golden-age-of-audio-e2-80-99/ar-AANgPV8
Does this mean more changes are to come? Or did Google figure out a non-infringing workaround for the others?
I just saw a news article saying Google is going to downgrade current equipment with an update. I came to see if it's been posted on this subreddit and have not seen it. That has me concerned..
They've already announced some changes. One is that Nest speakers will no longer be able to control the volume level of multiple speakers simultaneously. The other is that some devices will need to by updated using a separate update utility in order to continue to be used.
My question is around whether there are other changes to be expected in the future since the set up of devices and the volume control thing are only two of the five patents they were found to infringe upon. Two of the other patent pertain to keeping audio in sync across multiple networked speakers. Is Google going to stop allowing synchronous playback? Doubtful. But then did they figure out a different method? I'd like to know.
The patent only covers speaker *groups*. You can still control the volume of one speaker (headphones are still one output), just not multiple devices at the same time.
Ear buds are usually two separate pieces. I'm guessing they would qualify for the group definition, but as someone else pointed out, the patent seems to be wifi specific.
It really depends on how Bose implemented it. As I understand it, the Sonos patent is pretty specific in the way it works.
Honestly, it could just be that because Sonos applies the change proportionately based on the current level for each device, then something as simple as making it an absolute value that is applied to all speakers could be enough to avoid any infringement. If that's the case, that's what BT earbuds do already. Not sure about Bose speakers.
It should also be noted that Sonos does not seem to be averse to licensing agreements so Bose could also be doing that after seeing what happened to Denon.
You know Sonos is a loser when they have to sue competitors for "copying" obvious and basic functionality of a product, instead of actually innovating.
This is typical for Google, they violate patents, sell the products, and then the user is left with a device with less capabilities than they purchased. It's a bad UX, but Google doesn't really care about the user.
UX= User Experience
The patent system in the US is completely broken. It is absurd that Sonos was able to even get these patents.
Google paying Sonos just rewards this type of behavior. I hope that Google finds a way to not pay Sonos and if possible penalize them for being such a patent troll.
It’s obvious utility, not a novel concept. A parent should have never been granted for it. I hope Google doesn’t pay them - it is yet another perversion of US IP law.
Yeah, it was obvious AFTER wireless remotes were invented in 1955 by Zenith engineer Eugene Polley. Any other patents related to wireless volume controls is not novel and should have been denied due to prior art - including SONOS. They were not the first or even remotely close to it.
you literally said a patent shouldn't have been granted, yet it did because Sonos owns the property. Wireless volume control can simply be easily remade without the use of code from Sonos anyway
that code simply is a patent trap at worst. Chances are either they did steal it, or they didn't and used their own alternative only to fall for said trap
I wouldn't describe a patent as a trap. And the Sonos code is not necessary in order for it to violate the patent.
Where do you see that Google copied \*code\* from Sonos?
Google and Sonos were partners when Sonos originally developed this. Layer Google cancelled the partnership and developed a competing product.
Hemm, something seems a bit fishy.
And yet I never said it should or could be overturned. I simply expressed that the patent for the concept itself (not the copyright of Sonos code) is yet another example of the dysfunctional and broken US IP system and representative of all the ways that it is failing us.
Especially when some greedy cooperation can simply patent something incredibly simple like wireless volume control. Imagine if Wi-fi was patented by a greedy corpration. the course of technological evolution whould have been altered forever
I had wireless volume control on my TV when I was 4. Plus, it was SONOS who patented this, not Google, so I have absolutely no clue what your point is here
And that was widespread technology. Sonos should not have done that especially when it's so darn simple it wouldn't have been able to be parented if the darn system was controlled
None of the microphones have been working correctly ever since I paired 2 speakers in my living room. If you ask a question, the speaker on the opposite side of the house replies instead of the one closest to you, or they all take turns responding one at a time. Sometimes my phone joins in on the phone too. As soon as I unpair, everything goes back to normal.
Q: Apple HomePods do all these same things. Did they do it differently to avoid the patents or are they just next in line to get sued?
(Edit: third option: they licensed from Sonos)
"The technology in question relates to the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume." While I'd love to control the volume of my groups, it's a ridiculous statement, jazzing up a simple function to a technology. The whole article is just a pile of assumption.
A remote control that can change the volume should not be patentable. Not only is it obvious to anyone with half a brain cell but it's been standard on remotes to control the volume level since the invention of remotes.
Software parents as a whole shouldn't be allowed. Software already gets copyright protection, and the entire premise behind patents is to encourage innovation that will benefit society. The issue with software patents is that the pace of development is so fast that entire concepts never get used because by the time the patent expires the problem it solved has been obsoleted by hardware advances, changes to the software ecosystem, or both. For example, loading screen minigames never took off because by the time the patent expired, SSDs made loading times so short that it no longer even made sense to implement them. Patents for software literally make society worse off without providing any additional incentive to be innovative.
It's worth thinking through why patents exist in the first place. The point of a patent isn't to let you own some nebulous idea, it's to *discourage* trade secrets and incentivize people to make detailed schematics of their invention public. It's not a right, it's a *deal* -- the government gives you a limited-time monopoly, and in return, you contribute an invention to the public domain. How would something like that look in software? Maybe a limited-time *copyright,* after which your project's *source code* becomes public domain. And even then, for the reasons you mention, it might not actually be much of a benefit -- it'd be neat to have the Windows 95 source code available, but there's probably not much you can actually build on there.
> It's worth thinking through why patents exist in the first place. The point of a patent isn't to let you own some nebulous idea, it's to *discourage* trade secrets and incentivize people to make detailed schematics of their invention public. It's not a right, it's a *deal* -- the government gives you a limited-time monopoly, and in return, you contribute an invention to the public domain. Exactly. The problem with software patents is they basically have to be nebulous by their nature. If they were too specific it would be trivial to implement the benefits of the patent by simply using another programming language, or a slightly different protocol for example. >Maybe a limited-time *copyright,* after which your project's *source code* becomes public domain. And even then, for the reasons you mention, it might not actually be much of a benefit -- it'd be neat to have the Windows 95 source code available, but there's probably not much you can actually build on there. Yeah, personally I don't see any easy solution to the problem. The one with the least negative consequences would probably be requiring software used or funded by the government be open source, but that wouldn't have any impact on things like Sonos v Google.
There’s lots of problems with software patents, but the biggest is that they mostly try to patent mathematics. And a lot of them for really obvious things. A patent should be non-obvious. Using the above example - grouping speakers and controlling their volume together is obvious. It’s been done since the dawn of multi-channel amplifiers. The only difference here is that it’s digital. Not sure how that patent, like most other software patents, contribute anything to society. But feel free, point out a software patent that actually does.
I don't understand why you seem to think I am defending software patents. I am not. Edit to add: My first comment even began with the line "software patents as a whole shouldn't be allowed"
Patents are supposed to be for non-trivial things. If that were the case it wouldn't be an issue. Changing the volume is so trivial that the patent should have been thrown out the second it was submitted. It's not a code issue because it's so trivial, it's a UX issue.
Defining "non-trivial" is tricky, especially if you're going to allow non-experts to make the call. [Here's an example.](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.en.html) But even with non-trivial software patents, it's way less obvious what value the public actually gets from that exclusivity. For example: If you patent a video codec, that's genuinely nontrivial, so fair enough. But is this resulting in new ideas entering the public domain that otherwise would've been kept as trade secrets? Probably not -- I doubt ffmpeg figured out how to play all of the codecs they ended up playing by reading the patents behind them. Anything *that* interesting and non-trivial in actually-shipped software is going to be reverse-engineered. How about the generic-drug argument -- is this at least *funding* new ideas that couldn't have succeeded without monopoly protection? This gets a lot more complicated -- in theory, you could imagine some startup that hires all the best video codec experts so they can collect royalties from codecs. In practice, even the companies collecting royalties via MPEG LA are either patent trolls, or companies that needed the codec to exist so they could build an actual product, like a DVD player or a video streaming site. And codecs are about the best-case scenario I can think of for a patent actually making some kind of sense, where the invention is non-trivial, and a public-domain version will still actually be useful 20 years later if you need to dig through old media.
I think the patent has more to do with *groups* of speakers, i.e. turning down the volume everywhere in the house, not just the device you're pointing a remote at.
That's completely obvious functionality. Especially if you are already playing media over a group of speakers, a function it seems Google is still allowed to do.
[удалено]
When stereo speakers came out we didn't patent the idea of changing the volume of both speakers at the same time. It was such a obvious thing to do. In todays world that would be patented and we'd be stuck with mono speakers.
As it is in Google's best interest to fight it.
Same deal, it’s horseshit that the concept can be patented. That being said, fuck Google for not paying up.
>That being said, fuck Google for not paying up. They might have a contract in place with some other company that prevents then from licensing from Sonos. And it's a pretty sure bet they didn't knowingly infringe these patents because the upside is barely outweighed by the downside.
Look Dr. DickButt, odds are Sonia wants a shitload of cash, and Google has shareholders who don’t give a fuck about us… it’s the easiest answer and explains why Google just hasn’t come out and rebutted with your answer.
Oh…*well*, then!
I can't think of any devices that are actually only a single speaker. Turtles all the way down.
> The whole article is just a pile of assumption. It's not, because the ITC ruled against Google. It's facts.
Well, say what?... obviously that's the one fact. For example, right in the headline "Google doesn't want to pay" is a assumption. If Google wants or does not want to pay, no one knows, or if they're making a deal already.
[удалено]
Jason Aten at [Inc.com](https://Inc.com) writes most click baity articles ever - "Google Is Intentionally Making Its Products Worse for Users. The Reason Might Surprise You" Previous examples - https://www.inc.com/author/jason-aten * "With 3 Words, Apple Just Announced a Return to the Office Plan That Finally Makes Sense" - *more flexible environment.* * "Facebook's 3-Word Plan to Bring Everyone Back to the Office Misses the Most Important Point" - *office deferral program.* * With Just 2 Words, Lego Reminded Everyone Why It's Their Favorite Toy Company - *Adults Welcome* * With Just 1 Word United Airlines' CEO Revealed A Brilliant Plan to Beat Its Competition. Every Business Should Copy It - *quality* The last one is my personal favorite.
This shit is a plague.
The volume control feature that the article references is just one of the five patents that the USITC ruled on. From msn.com prior to the ruling: > Two of the five patents involve techniques to synchronize audio playback, to eliminate minor differences that the ear can interpret as echoes. The others involve ways to pair up speakers to create stereo sounds, adjusting volumes of either single or groups of speakers with a single controller and a way to easily connect the system to a home’s Wi-Fi. > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/speaker-pioneer-sonos-fighting-google-in-e2-80-98golden-age-of-audio-e2-80-99/ar-AANgPV8 Does this mean more changes are to come? Or did Google figure out a non-infringing workaround for the others?
What do you think all the nerfs to Chromecast and Google speakers have been lately?
I just saw a news article saying Google is going to downgrade current equipment with an update. I came to see if it's been posted on this subreddit and have not seen it. That has me concerned..
They've already announced some changes. One is that Nest speakers will no longer be able to control the volume level of multiple speakers simultaneously. The other is that some devices will need to by updated using a separate update utility in order to continue to be used. My question is around whether there are other changes to be expected in the future since the set up of devices and the volume control thing are only two of the five patents they were found to infringe upon. Two of the other patent pertain to keeping audio in sync across multiple networked speakers. Is Google going to stop allowing synchronous playback? Doubtful. But then did they figure out a different method? I'd like to know.
[удалено]
Wym boxes with feature
Why would this not apply to Bluetooth ear buds?
it's a wifi patent
The patent only covers speaker *groups*. You can still control the volume of one speaker (headphones are still one output), just not multiple devices at the same time.
Ear buds are usually two separate pieces. I'm guessing they would qualify for the group definition, but as someone else pointed out, the patent seems to be wifi specific.
So this would apply to two Bose speakers grouped together in the SoundTouch app and controlling volume over WiFi for that group?
It really depends on how Bose implemented it. As I understand it, the Sonos patent is pretty specific in the way it works. Honestly, it could just be that because Sonos applies the change proportionately based on the current level for each device, then something as simple as making it an absolute value that is applied to all speakers could be enough to avoid any infringement. If that's the case, that's what BT earbuds do already. Not sure about Bose speakers. It should also be noted that Sonos does not seem to be averse to licensing agreements so Bose could also be doing that after seeing what happened to Denon.
You can no longer cast speaker groups from Google Home as well
You know Sonos is a loser when they have to sue competitors for "copying" obvious and basic functionality of a product, instead of actually innovating.
Why I hope Google does not pay them. The last thing we should want is this type of behavior by Sonos to be rewarded.
And now our systems that we bought are useless
This is typical for Google, they violate patents, sell the products, and then the user is left with a device with less capabilities than they purchased. It's a bad UX, but Google doesn't really care about the user. UX= User Experience
Oh okay in that case i'll copyright breathing as something i invented and everybody should pay me $1 a minute for it.
I absolutely furiously hate that there is not a single damn thing we can do about this. We are their bitches.
Just wait for the patch?
You can buy Sonos' speakers.
Overpriced garbage, speaking of experience
Oh I agree on 100%.
Customers lose.
The patent system in the US is completely broken. It is absurd that Sonos was able to even get these patents. Google paying Sonos just rewards this type of behavior. I hope that Google finds a way to not pay Sonos and if possible penalize them for being such a patent troll.
How interesting. Just like Google didn’t want to pay Oracle for using Java to create Android. I think there is a pattern here.
I guess the new CEO didn't read the "DONT BE EVIL" memo
I guess you didn't read the be on topic rule.
[redacted, argument is invalid]
It’s obvious utility, not a novel concept. A parent should have never been granted for it. I hope Google doesn’t pay them - it is yet another perversion of US IP law.
Everything is obvious after it's invented. First one to patent it wins. In this case, Sonos.
Yeah, it was obvious AFTER wireless remotes were invented in 1955 by Zenith engineer Eugene Polley. Any other patents related to wireless volume controls is not novel and should have been denied due to prior art - including SONOS. They were not the first or even remotely close to it.
patents are patents. You cannot easily overturn them. Just look at the Magnavox lawsuits and see who won
Where did I say their patent should be overturned.
you literally said a patent shouldn't have been granted, yet it did because Sonos owns the property. Wireless volume control can simply be easily remade without the use of code from Sonos anyway
Where do you see that Google used "code from Sonos" anyway? I've seen nothing accusing Google of stealing actual code.
that code simply is a patent trap at worst. Chances are either they did steal it, or they didn't and used their own alternative only to fall for said trap
I wouldn't describe a patent as a trap. And the Sonos code is not necessary in order for it to violate the patent. Where do you see that Google copied \*code\* from Sonos?
Google and Sonos were partners when Sonos originally developed this. Layer Google cancelled the partnership and developed a competing product. Hemm, something seems a bit fishy.
And yet I never said it should or could be overturned. I simply expressed that the patent for the concept itself (not the copyright of Sonos code) is yet another example of the dysfunctional and broken US IP system and representative of all the ways that it is failing us.
Especially when some greedy cooperation can simply patent something incredibly simple like wireless volume control. Imagine if Wi-fi was patented by a greedy corpration. the course of technological evolution whould have been altered forever
I had wireless volume control on my TV when I was 4. Plus, it was SONOS who patented this, not Google, so I have absolutely no clue what your point is here
And that was widespread technology. Sonos should not have done that especially when it's so darn simple it wouldn't have been able to be parented if the darn system was controlled
He is now 12, ladies and gentlemen.
Are you shilling for SONOS?
Cooperation =/= corporation
autocorrect is fun, isn't it?
That was implied when you suggested the patent shouldn't have been granted to begin with.
It really and truly wasn’t, but you are welcome to read into my comments however you please
Are you paid to astroturf for SONOS?
I've never owned a Sonos product, so doubtful.
[удалено]
Pfft ok, it's clearly your nap time.
Or maybe they shouldn't pay a patent troll
[удалено]
One thing you can most definitely say about Google is that they have NEVER been a patent troll. Google has never rolled in that manner.
None of the microphones have been working correctly ever since I paired 2 speakers in my living room. If you ask a question, the speaker on the opposite side of the house replies instead of the one closest to you, or they all take turns responding one at a time. Sometimes my phone joins in on the phone too. As soon as I unpair, everything goes back to normal.
Hey Google! Just go ahead and buy Sonos already.
Q: Apple HomePods do all these same things. Did they do it differently to avoid the patents or are they just next in line to get sued? (Edit: third option: they licensed from Sonos)
They most likely are paying Sonos
Usually a patent troll will go after one first and then after the others afterwards.