Google's smart speaker is difficult to use due to update, so it's perfect for patent questions

delivery

Google Home app update

　Updated on January 8th to Google's smart home -related management app "Google Home".47.79.5）がdeliveryされました。Pixel 6 Proの物理ボリュームボタンで一括コントロールできたのに　アップデートの内容はよくある「バグの修正と機能の改善を行いました」となっていますが、アップデートすると、実は使えなくなる機能があります。私はそれが嫌で、まだアップデートを適用していません（こういうことがあるのでAndroidアプリの更新はマニュアル設定にしています）。　アップデートしちゃうとグループ化したスマートスピーカー＆スマートディスプレイ（以下、「スマートくんたち」）のボリュームをまとめてコントロールする機能が使えなくなります。うちでは2台のNest Miniをステレオにした上で、それとリビングのNest HubとキッチンのNest Hub Maxをまとめて1つのグループにして家中で同じ音楽を流しているので、これが使えないと不便です。　なんでこんなことになったかというと……。

Sonos appeals for patent infringement

　ITC acknowledged that SONOS appealed to ITC (US International Trade Commission) that "Google is infringing our patents!" If Google does nothing, Google products that are infringing patents (although no specific specifics are specified, at least the smarts should be applicable) (Google is the United States in the United States. Although it is a company, the product manufacturing is mainly in China, so it is "imported", so if it cannot be imported, it cannot be sold). So, Google asks ITC to "change the function so that you don't infringe a little patent, so wait," and the measures you took for the time being are an inconvenient update for this user. ITC is not a court, but it is a quasi -judicial institution, which is like a court due to trade -related issues. In 2013, Apple vs. Samsung's patent lawsuit issued an order to import and sell some iPhone models to the United States. At this time, President Obama has been veto in this injury order, so the iPhone was evaded from being banned. This time, I don't think it's suddenly banned. However, the current Biden administration is somewhat critical of Big Tech, so it may not be activated. However, SONOS has filed Google not only to ITC but also to the Central District Court of California, and if Google wins in this trial, both sides can avoid import prohibitions while maintaining mens. There is a possibility. Or, as SONOS says, Google pays a patent fee. However, Google says in the official statement that "protect himself from SONOS 'frivolous claims" is not intended to pay a patent fee because patent infringement is a mess. As a user, I really don't want to be a quarrel between companies. The physical volume buttons of the Android smartphone were used unconsciously, but it was also useful, but it is convenient. I can't use this either. There may not be many users who have a group of smarts, but maybe the number of remote work has increased. According to the comments on the official blog explaining the function change, "This is useless. The reason for purchasing Google's speaker is completely gone" or "Google is sued to SONOS and do we pay for it? There are more than 200 comments from users, including hiring a good lawyer and winning a lawsuit, paying a loyalty to SONOS, or refunding to customers. " By the way, what will Google do? I say "SONOS's unfounded claim", but I don't think SONOS's Patrick Spence CEO is a completely unfounded claim. I want you to resolve the back of the peace and revive the useful functions. * This article is a column of "Google -san" series that loosens Google's trends.

ITMEDIA NEWS