[ocdtrekkie]

Google explicitly partnered with Sonos in a collaborative project to find out how Sonos' tech worked, then copied it. It's plausible that Sonos feels Google explicitly stole from them, and Apple built something else.

Or, empowered by a win against Google, they file suit against Apple tomorrow. No reason to be in two high cost lawsuits at the same time.

[metadat]

Any source to back up this claim?

This sounds unusually stupid, even for Goggle - because they could've just poached a few engineers and it would be less risky than public, high-profile corporate espionage.

[rasz]

As stupid as this sounds, this is usual Google MO coming all the way from the top with both Sergey Brin and Larry Page involved in person

"In February of 2008, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page visited Space Data’s headquarters with as many as 10 other Google executives in tow"

https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...

https://9to5google.com/2017/07/10/project-loon-patents/

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...

[ocdtrekkie]

It's a core part of Sonos' complaint, I am sure you could find it in the legal filings, but this article about a preliminary injunction against Google in Germany about the same issue starts with that detail in particular: https://chromeunboxed.com/google-sonos-lawsuit-2021

[jvolkman]

Why would Google need to partner/collaborate to steal what would be publicly described in a patent?

[ocdtrekkie]

My guess would be that the patent lacks some of the implementation details, and allowed them to create a product that worked as well easily. Bear in mind, most generic-sounding software patents aren't going to give you any actual code to look at.

[AlbertCory]

In fact, almost none of them. It's not required, although it ought to be.

[kevincox]

Isn't the point of the patent that you share a technology in exchange for a temporary monopoly? If the patent doesn't have enough information to implement the technology it should be considered invalid.

[ocdtrekkie]

This is definitely the original intent and idea of patents. I don't think it's functionally what happens today though.

I think I'd be much happier with software patents if they were required to come with working code. Companies would likely be less willing to file their patents if they essentially were required to source available the code.

In practice here, Google is getting a patent infringement judgment, but it almost certainly included some trade secret theft, since the details of the patent aren't enough to reproduce the technology. We have an outcome that is reasonable, but I think based on some legal concepts that could use an update.

[AlbertCory]

Good point. This is called "written description" or "enablement." I researched this in some depth and even have a unfinished paper on the subject. To me it's the silver bullet to ending software patents, or one of the bullets.

The legal standard, believe it or not, is that you don't even need a detailed flowchart, let alone source code. The actual code is something anyone skilled in the art can do, sorta like a lab tech determining the exact temperature and pressure to use to manufacture your chemical compound.

I was in some informal discussion in Google Legal, and someone stated unequivocally, "source code will never be required in patent descriptions."

You have to ask "Why TF not?" I think the answer, at least the non-quiet part () is "the PTO is not equipped to judge your source code's adequacy. Any skilled coder can write the code."

( cynicism alert) the quiet part is "that would put us all out of business."

It's totally reasonable to require that a patentee checks his source code and build files into GitHub or some other repository. Probably the PTO should contract with someone to build a repository and they will operate it.

The lawyers and politicians and PTO will never do this on their own. Software engineers will have to organize and force it through. A lengthy flame on HN will not accomplish that.

[bluGill]

That is the point but patents are written in legalese, not something engineers understand. I have talked to a few engineers who have patents and none of them could design the thing from the patent language - and invented it in the first place.

I don't know how to solve this problem, but it does seem like it is a problem worth solving.

[alisonkisk]

if the patent is legit, it would explain the invention and there would be no need to collaborate to steal the tech