For those who'd like to read the official document(s), if I understand correctly, the order can be found here, at the bottom: <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-sonos-inc/?page=6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18483005/google-llc-v-s...</a>.
If this means I'll be able to cast to my array of Sonos devices, good. I love Sonos but that's a glaring omission.<p>It feels like they're stuck in the past (plus their devices still don't support RSTP).
>A California federal judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict for wireless-audio company Sonos (SONO.O) against rival Google (GOOGL.O) after finding that the Sonos patents at the heart of the case were unenforceable.<p>I am used to seeing statements that these legal cases cost $$$$ in legal fees, so I am curious what is likely to have been the spend on either side of the case. A $32.5 million verdict is likely significantly lower than Sonos had hoped. What was that likely to have been as a ratio of legal fees? Would Google have hired outside consul to help defend or is the in house staff sufficient to handle the case?
Here is a link to the order:<p><a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20TRIAL%20ruling.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/...</a>