|
|
|
|
|
|
by GuB-42
2351 days ago
|
|
|
> Devil's advocate: That's exactly what patents are for though. Someone had a really good idea, built it, and someone else came along and said "that's a really great idea, I'm going to do that too." We, as technologists, keep asserting that ideas have value, until it's an idea we really want. Ideas have very little value. What is valuable is the implementation of it. And that's what patents protect. I'm sure that thousands, if not millions of people thought about connected speakers. Sonos build an enclosure and a PCB, specified the protocols to be used, designed the software that goes with it, etc... patenting the technical innovations they spend money on developing along the way. That's what Sonos brought to the table, not the idea of connected speakers. If Google decided to redevelop things from scratch based on that idea, as they claimed, they owe nothing to Sonos. Sure, they have the advantage of knowing that it is a good idea, but Sonos got a head start, that's fair. What Sonos complains about is that Google didn't develop their solution from scratch and copied more than the general idea. |
|
|
That's not how patents work. If Google had never heard of Sonos and independently developed a connected speaker, and the result was too similar to what the patent covers, then Google would owe Sonos. Less than if the infringement were willful, but it's still infringement per the law.