Google wins reprieve from $32M verdict in Sonos patent fight

Alsup strikes again! Same judge who presided over Oracle v Google, and Google v Uber/Levandowski.

AS someone who was an early fan of Sonos I really hate what they have become and am delighted this got tossed.

I rather hope they restore the original functionality for Google home they had to throw out thanks to this case.

Patents need to be severely reduced or restricted

For those who&#x27;d like to read the official document(s), if I understand correctly, the order can be found here, at the bottom: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;docket&#x2F;18483005&#x2F;google-llc-v-sonos-inc&#x2F;?page=6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courtlistener.com&#x2F;docket&#x2F;18483005&#x2F;google-llc-v-s...</a>.

If this means I&#x27;ll be able to cast to my array of Sonos devices, good. I love Sonos but that&#x27;s a glaring omission.<p>It feels like they&#x27;re stuck in the past (plus their devices still don&#x27;t support RSTP).

&gt;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:&#x2F;&#x2F;fingfx.thomsonreuters.com&#x2F;gfx&#x2F;legaldocs&#x2F;znpnznkjgpl&#x2F;GOOGLE%20SONOS%20TRIAL%20ruling.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fingfx.thomsonreuters.com&#x2F;gfx&#x2F;legaldocs&#x2F;znpnznkjgpl&#x2F;...</a>