chicks wrote:
> If they didn't patent it, though (and I can't find anything assigned to
> Logitech that indicates they did), it's a moot point.
>
> If they DID patent it, why haven't they sued SONOS, Google, etc?
There is always the possibility that Logitech came to a confidential
agreement
po...@lns.com wrote:
> If there is Prior Art that shows that someone came up with the idea
> before Sonos registered for the patent, the patent would not be
> considered novel and therefore not valid.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
>
> Keep in mind, folks are awarded patents all
If there is Prior Art that shows that someone came up with the idea
before Sonos registered for the patent, the patent would not be
considered novel and therefore not valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
Keep in mind, folks are awarded patents all the time where there is
prior art.
chicks wrote:
> If they didn't patent it, though (and I can't find anything assigned to
> Logitech that indicates they did), it's a moot point.
>
> If they DID patent it, why haven't they sued SONOS, Google, etc?
Because every time you do that you have an enormous risk of backfire up
to a
ftlight wrote:
> I posted a link to the patent earlier in this thread:
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en
>
> Slim Devices clearly had sold products with this facility earlier than
> even the June 2003 priority date claimed by Sonos in the 2013 patent
> above that is the basis
ftlight wrote:
> Slim Devices clearly had sold products with this facility earlier than
> even the June 2003 priority date claimed by Sonos in the 2013 patent
> above that is the basis of their claims against Google.
US Patent office has had history of ignoring prior-art esp in relation
to
Sad example of misuse of patents original intent. At the end, only
lawyers get richer but hey, thats fine, just dont look up
LMS 8.2 on Odroid-C4 - *SqueezeAMP!*, 5xRadio, 5xBoom, 2xDuet, 1xTouch,
1xSB3. Sonos PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, Foobar2000, ShairPortW,
2xChromecast Audio,
Paul Webster wrote:
> Google appears to be going down the route of modifying their stuff to
> side-step the issue.
> They seem to have removed the ability to adjust the group volume (users
> now have to adjust each player individually) and also volume change
> using the mobile phone hardware
This article seems to cover alot of what "might" happen
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-patent-case-starts-stripping-functionality-from-speakers/
piCorePlayer a small player for the Raspberry Pi in RAM.
Homepage: https://www.picoreplayer.org
Please 'donate'
bpa wrote:
> Similarly I don't know the patent details but IIRC Sonos and Google
> speakers sorted out syncing by exchanges between the players whereas LMS
> did sync centrally from LMS and I think early Sonos had proprietary non
> TCP comms.
I posted a link to the patent earlier in this
Google appears to be going down the route of modifying their stuff to
side-step the issue.
They seem to have removed the ability to adjust the group volume (users
now have to adjust each player individually) and also volume change
using the mobile phone hardware volume control.
Maybe reducing
freelsjd wrote:
> As many of you have mentioned, I am also not familiar with the details
> of this case, just that I read articles on the web about it. It sounds
> like from the discussion here that it probably is more about HOW the
> synchronization was done as opposed to the mere fact that
>
I read a comment some time ago that Google discontinued the Chromecast
Audio dongle because of hassle from Apple. I found that hard to believe
because surely their smart speakers use the same software routines.
And I was wondering earlier today about the features we inherited from
Slim Devices
As many of you have mentioned, I am also not familiar with the details
of this case, just that I read articles on the web about it. It sounds
like from the discussion here that it probably is more about HOW the
synchronization was done as opposed to the mere fact that
synchronization took
Paul Webster wrote:
> However, I have not read the Sonos patent or the details of their claim
> against Google.
> Note though ... it is unlikely to have been about the case that there is
> synchronisation but instead about 1 or 2 key features of how it was
> described in the patent and how they
It was in the Slimserver/LMS code since mid-2002 so would have been
worked on for some weeks or months before and designed before that.
Version 2.3 Release 05/19/02
Multiple players can now synchronize their audio outputs to within 1
millisecond of each other. This allows you to play the same
w3wilkes wrote:
> I would guess it was before 2005. The earliest post I can see in these
> forums is Apr, 2005. I would think that Slim devices had these
> capabilities right from the get go.Here is a post about synchronisation from
> 2003.
I would guess it was before 2005. The earliest post I can see in these
forums is Apr, 2005. I would think that Slim devices had these
capabilities right from the get go.
Main system - Rock Solid with LMS 8.2.0 on WHS 2011 - 2 Duets and
Squeeseslave
Cabin system - Rock solid with LMS 8.2.0 on
freelsjd wrote:
> Anyone else in this forum also see the news that Sonos has successfully
> sued Google for patent infringement. It was over several things, but
> mostly about how Google can pair up speakers and send music through
> speakers wirelessly.
>
> I couldn't help but think that
Anyone else in this forum also see the news that Sonos has successfully
sued Google for patent infringement. It was over several things, but
mostly about how Google can pair up speakers and send music through
speakers wirelessly.
I couldn't help but think that Slimdevices and later Logitech
20 matches
Mail list logo
