Google sues Sonos yet again, claiming it stole IP and infringed patents Google hit Sonos with two lawsuits on Monday, claiming patent infringement on seven different technologies associated with smart speakers, as part of its ongoing battle with the audio hardware biz over intellectual property. Both companies previously collaborated on building software to support audio devices, but their …
It seems Google has turned to the next chapter in the book "how to be like Microsoft", titled "how to acquire IP without paying for it". Only Stac Electronics made a dent in that one, and it still went the way of the dodo after that.
At least they no longer pretend not to be evil.
My heart bleeds for sonos. The main patent they stole off Google was the idea to brick perfectly decent audio amps after a couple of years.
I hope they continue to be considered evil for that number.
It's a shame these greedy corps can't agree to support a single media transfer format over Ethernet/wifi.
A curse on both their houses
Software patents are evil. Software patents should not exist.
The non retaliation patent approach that's enclosed in some opensource licenses is what Google was relying on here. It's the only approach that can protect opensource projects and companies. Sonos probably uses other's patents, yet sues for patent infringing. I hope that this will make them rethink their operating model and stick to making good speakers instead of being a patent troll.
I can't help feeling a large amount of schadenfreude at the prospect of Sonos being amply rewarded for their arrogance.
Although they eventually backed down on bricking perfectly functional kit, the fact that they even proposed it in the first place says a lot about what kind of company they are. As does their current strategy of risking all their shareholders' money on patent wars against Google. If they lose, customers might once again be in the position of having their investment in Sonos products turned into e-waste when Sonos goes bust and the servers essential to operating their products go offline.
Imagine if they turned their money and efforts towards making their products work better, work offline and stopped collecting buckets of personal data from their users...but I don't see it happening.
so you have a 'Heart of Gold'...
TBH, I'm with you in this. We are relying far too much on a Network Connection being available 24/7 for all these widgets to phone home. If they can't, they get decidedly irritable like some teenager who can't get on their favourite SM site for an hour.
To me, SM was the last part of BDSM but what do I know eh?
Wireless music played in more than one room! Amazing, completely unlike me and the missus, each with our own tranny.
Oh, it is all about us both receiving the same music and we choose what that will be? So, totally unlike the (rather illegal but boys will be boys) FM transmitter bought from Tandy and plugged into a cassette deck back in the 70s? Okay, that wasn't shared with missus back then and it went a bit further than the next room - hey, wireless sharing with next door, that is surely good enough for its own patent!
On Sonos speakers self-bricking, there is an essential mental conflict.
I pay for a tidal sub and a mobile phone connection and netflix, if I stop paying, those services stop.
This is not a surprise or an issue to me.
My next door neighbour has 5 Sonos speakers scattered in his house, they are good. He has spent time and energy installing them etc, if they self brick, ever, he will be livid.
This "buying something, but it is not yours" is universally hated (printer ink) but people keep on trying (I understand BMW is selling 'features' for its car on a subscription in Korea)
IMO we need rules (laws) that make corporates fit their sales channels to human expectations and understandings.
> we need rules (laws) that make corporates fit their sales channels to human expectations and understandings
Back in the Good Old Days we used the concepts of Fit for Purpose and hence Fit for Sale, with accommodation for a reasonable lifetime of use.
Easy enough for fork handles and broom heads, but seemingly ignored by *all* parties to the sale when buying the shiny shiny.
Now, if we could get the buying public to read the side of the box before purchasing and then demanding a contractually enforceable Service Level Agreement then you'll find that we already have laws that can be applied for consumer protection.
But sure, demand new laws before exhausting the existing ones - won't anyone think of the poor starving politicians and the deeply impoverished legislature!
If they did, it would probably vaguely mention "needs internet connection". Not "requires a 24hr internet connection, sign up to a user account with a 24 page EULA, a service that can be switched off when we run out of gullible users to fund the business, spaff your personal details to random marketing departments and/or have it stolen because our security is so shit". But knowing the idiots who buy these things, they probably wouldn't care anyway.
I only have to deal with warnings such as "This stereophonic recording may be played on mono players if a compatible cartridge is fitted. Please consult your dealer".
fork handles
Totally off-topic, but 18 year-old is working the summer at a local outdoor museum which has a collection of old buildings. Did a stint in the general shop a couple of weeks ago and had four separate people try the "four candles" joke, each time with a comment along the lines of "I suppose you're too young to have heard this but..."
Gets most annoyed that people always have the same questions, and they're often the ones which are least interesting to answer. "These are Celtic roundhouses, no, they weren't the same as the Vikings..."
All this patent bullshit has gone far too far now.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that most of these patents on both sides are invalid. It seems to be the standard to grant patents and then wonder whether they are valid later. The patent system hasn't been used for the purpose it was originally intended for decades. The only solution to this is to change the system so that patent offices have the power to fine companies for filing patents that are found to be invalid. Of course there are those that argue is that patents applications are filed in such great numbers these days that the world's patent offices don't have time to properly check them, but surely the real problem there is funding. If patent offices could afford to employ more staff then they could keep up. How to find the funding to employ more staff. Fines that's how.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
