Sonos Sues Lenbrook for Bluesound and BluOS, Alleging Patent Infringement

@Kumar, you're original point was that multiroom capabilities aren't that useful anymore. Now it seems like you've shifted to say that Sonos multiroom capabilities aren't that valuable and you can accomplish multiroom by other means, like Dot groups. I don't think there's any disagreement about this separate point since Sonos certainly isn't the only brand offering multroom capabilities.
I'd also say that, this basic multiroom capability probably meets the needs of a big chuck of the market who only stream and don't think Sonos multiroom adds enough value, or aren't aware of what that functionality can give them.
You are reinforcing what I said via the quoted.
I only said that the Sonos capability is not as valuable as it was in the past, because it is not unique any more in ways that matter to a big part of the market that now can stream its music. It may be that this market does not know better, but it is what it is. And this state of "ignorance" is likely to continue. And Sonos isn't therefore likely to see a large revenue stream from patent fees or lawsuits for just this reason, because the market has moved on with the advent of these new sources of music. Those paying fees or suffering lawsuits are those who haven't been smart enough to sidestep Sonos and reshape the market in a changing environment as Amazon has, but have just tried to copy Sonos, never a winning strategy, regardless of the license fee issue that surrounds it. Compare the market success of Echo v that of Denon/Bluesound, as an example.
That is all I am saying.

Re:multiroom, I listen to podcasts or lectures while cleaning or working around the house, so having it play in all rooms is nice. I also use it for entertaining, so I have the same music inside and outside the house. It really is a great thing, and I’m glad Sonos kicked off this boom, but is multiroom specific enough for a 20 year hold? I have a hard time swallowing that something that broad deserves a patent. The method of synchronizing multiple rooms? Sure - show your work, show your math. But the availability of multiroom synced audio, while cool, is not innovative enough for a patent, and in fact giving one company total control over that market for that long. I’m in IT, and we’ve had technologies that lasted less 20 years but still an impact. Moreso, this stifles rather than promotes innovation, imho, when it comes to software.

Seems like an extreme example in that Sonos has not started lawsuits against all the companies that do multiroom audio in one form or another. It seems as though Sonos has patented certain techniques and features for accomplishing multiroom , and that seems more reasonable to me. @buzz said earlier, you should be able to take the time and money to invent something new without having to worry that someone else is going to copy your work and take all your profits.

Personally, I don't see multiroom audio as a unique idea. I do think the method for keeping things in sync as unique. I do think that another company should be able to come up with a different way of doing it without violating the patent. As well, you shouldn't be able to hold patents you aren't using just to prevent someone else from using it, at least not hold it for very long.

Where things get a little more debatable to me is when an inventor spends the time and effort to make their invention appeal to the public. If I create a widget and then spend a million dollars on ads and such to let people know it's out there and how it can improve thier life, even though the widget doesn't have any unique tech or features, just used in a different way, I don't want some no name brand placing their copy of my product in stores right next to mind, leveraging all the advertisement I did.

As a hypothetical, say Sonos comes up with a idea of a speaker grill made of white board material. Customers can write on it with their own designs, then wipe them off. There isn't any new tech about that at all, it's a new idea. Sonos should be able to protect that idea for a certain length of time.

@Kumar, you're original point was that multiroom capabilities aren't that useful anymore. Now it seems like you've shifted to say that Sonos multiroom capabilities aren't that valuable and you can accomplish multiroom by other means, like Dot groups. I don't think there's any disagreement about this separate point since Sonos certainly isn't the only brand offering multroom capabilities.

I'd also say that, this basic multiroom capability probably meets the needs of a big chuck of the market who only stream and don't think Sonos multiroom adds enough value, or aren't aware of what that functionality can give them.You are reinforcing what I said via the quoted.

i understood "multiroom trick' to imply multiroom audio in general, not just Sonos multiroom. I see that we agree now.

I only said that the Sonos capability is not as valuable as it was in the past, because it is not unique any more in ways that matter to a big part of the market that now can stream its music. It may be that this market does not know better, but it is what it is. And this state of "ignorance" is likely to continue. And Sonos isn't therefore likely to see a large revenue stream from patent fees or lawsuits for just this reason, because the market has moved on with the advent of these new sources of music.

Yes and no. Your correct in the sense that a customer deciding between an echo and Sonos One will see no difference in multiroom because they don't know any better. That ignorance is because they'll never experienced the difference or because Sonos has not put forth the effort to advertise the difference. Some are obvious and would be clear to some who look at it seriously. I don't think someone who values integrating their TV audio with their audio system will fail to notice the difference. I imagine most A/V installers will point out the differences to their customers. I wouldn't conclude that holding patents on these difference don't matter anymore.

Those paying fees or suffering lawsuits are those who haven't been smart enough to sidestep Sonos and reshape the market in a changing environment as Amazon has, but have just tried to copy Sonos, never a winning strategy, regardless of the license fee issue that surrounds it. Compare the market success of Echo v that of Denon/Bluesound, as an example.
That is all I am saying.

But echos are not a success because of their multiroom capabilities or even sound quality, it 100% based on the voice assistant. You could also argue that they target a slightly different demographic based on cost and sound quality. I don't know that you could say that Denon/Bluesound would be successful using Echos method of multiroom. I'm not even sure they could copy it well if it uses cloud tech to get it done. In fact, what other company has been much of a success doing multiroom without heavily using voice assistant (and probably bluetooth) as the selling point? Granted, lots of people buy Sonos for the voice assisant now and not multiroom.

Denon & Bluesound rely on your WiFi, so not much chance they can handle true multiroom without stuttering. “Hi-Res” multiroom on them is simply laughable. Sonos’ clear advantage over all the 2nd rate competition has always been SonosNet.

But echos are not a success because of their multiroom capabilities or even sound quality, it 100% based on the voice assistant. You could also argue that they target a slightly different demographic based on cost and sound quality.
Again, the first sentence quoted makes the same point that I am making about multi room, and its importance to the extent only Sonos delivers to more than a niche. The first existential crisis that Sonos faced once it was past its early days, was delivered to it via Echo. That would suggest Echo did more than just "target a slightly different demographic". For some time, that is what I too thought about Echo in the initial days; it was thus a big surprise to learn just how much their success affected Sonos sales when I read about the crisis they caused in Sonos.

Again, the first sentence quoted makes the same point that I am making about multi room, and its importance to the extent only Sonos delivers to more than a niche. The first existential crisis that Sonos faced once it was past its early days, was delivered to it via Echo. That would suggest Echo did more than just "target a slightly different demographic". For some time, that is what I too thought about Echo in the initial days; it was thus a big surprise to learn just how much their success affected Sonos sales when I read about the crisis they caused in Sonos.

Kumar, it is obvious you would feel this way since your only exposure to multi-room via Alexa is using line-ins from Echo Dots. Trust me, the actual multi-room experience via Sonos is far superior to that of Alexa alone.

Kumar, it is obvious you would feel this way since your only exposure to multi-room via Alexa is using line-ins from Echo Dots. Trust me, the actual multi-room experience via Sonos is far superior to that of Alexa alone.
I used multi room before the advent of Alexa via Sonos groups and that worked well enough for what I needed it to - music from a NAS in perfect sync from multiple sets of speakers - Sonos as well as third party- in the open plan area. And before streaming services came to India, whenever my son was with us, he used the feature to play his music in his room from the one NAS.

Echo Dots wired in to the line ins now provide just as good service in the open plan area for music that need not be NAS sourced, and they would do so even without Sonos there. My son carries his phone with him that gives him access to Apple Music which he streams via BT to an Echo Plus in his room whenever he is with us now, or uses Amazon Music directly with the Echo. He has no need for the music on the NAS now, and has surrendered his play 1 unit to the open area.

While I have no doubt about what you say about the clear Sonos superiority for multi room, I don't seem to have use for it and therefore do not think it is as unique as it seems to be for people like you. I see no need to sell Sonos kit since it works as well as I need it to, but if I had to replay 2011 today, I may not buy Sonos given the options now available. Correction: I may still choose to, because I still like to use the NAS at times, but there are many people that have never had a NAS and may choose different.

I was quite surprised to see how well the Dots work where music play stability is concerned, singly or as a group. As well as Sonos does, although the Dots do not use Sonos net.

It seems to me that the question therefore is the size of the market that needs all the Sonos multi room superiority versus that for which the basic multi room service of Echo and the like suffices. From all accounts, Sonos cannot sustain itself in just the former market, while for the latter, Sonos multi room isn't the USP that it is in the former.

To the question of how the above is relevant to the topic:
It is an argument in support of my view that Sonos patents are not going to stymie the growth of multi room home audio - that horse has bolted - or give Sonos any significant enduring advantage, except against imitators like Bluesound. I somehow doubt that Sonos sees such imitation as threats to survival, or sees the license fees from such as a significant long term source of profits.

Kumar, I can't help thinking your formerly high praise of Sonos has been spoiled by your loss of the Dock, which while useful to some, it was a relatively fringe component compared to Sonos' other offerings. Just my opinion, but it does seem the dropping of that unit has spoiled your overall view of Sonos functionality, regardless of how independent that functionality is from the Dock itself.

Not so, quite a bit of my disappointments predate the loss of the dock, via a combination of acts of commission and omission by Sonos in the last couple of years. Like the frenzied UI churn, or not keeping pace with Amazon for India initiatives as just two examples that come to mind. Add to that the availability now of genuine alternatives to Sonos, that allow me more scope to be objective in assessing Sonos. Where praise is merited, I still do not withhold it. And nor do I need to think about switching over - because I have so many line in jacks, I am able to enhance Sonos functionality by adding other kit to it: for example, always on artwork display via a Spot.

Basically, wherever I find a better horse for a particular course, I see no reason to not use one or recommend it.

Ironically, Sonos has been the most effective for getting my remote room browsing experience to become just as good as it is near the router, via a AEX wired to the line in of a Connect Amp, piggy backing on Sonos net. On the other hand, my Dots work just as stably without the benefit of Sonos net. I simply use what works best for me; I don't care who makes it.