this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023

352 points (97.1% liked)

Android

27924 readers

131 users here now

DROID DOES

Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules

1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.

2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.

4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.

5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.

6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.

7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.

8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.

Community Resources:

We are Android girls*,

In our Lemmy.world.

The back is plastic,

It's fantastic.

*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.

Our Partner Communities:

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

352

Google ordered to pay $339M for stealing the very idea of Chromecast (www.androidauthority.com)

submitted 1 year ago by CantSt0pPoppin to c/android

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Chromecast has been one of those smaller hardware products that have brought about a meaningful experience upgrade. The first Chromecast solved the pain point of clunky TV software interfaces, making it easier to locate content on your handy smartphone and then play it on your big-screen TV. However, a Court in the US has ruled that Google has infringed upon patents with its Chromecast products and that it should pay $338.7 million in damages because of it.

A Western District of Texas jury has ruled that Google has violated three patents held by a company called Touchstream Technologies, as reported by ArsTechnica. The complaint points to several Chromecast products, including the Chromecast Ultra, the Chromecast with Google TV, and other Chromecast-integrated products.

The first patent application in this complaint was filed in April 2011. The three patents relate to “a system for presenting and controlling content on a display device.”

Further, the complaint claims that Touchstream met with Google in December 2011 but was told that the tech giant wasn’t interested in partnering with it in February 2012. For reference, the first generation Google Chromecast was released in 2013. The latest Chromecast with Google TV (HD) was launched in September 2022, while the 4K variant was launched earlier in September 2020.

Chromecast with Google TV HD box 2 Google opposed the complaint, arguing that the patents are “hardly foundational and do not cover every method of selecting content on a personal device and watching it on another screen.” Further, the Chromecast is said to differ in technologies detailed in Touchstream’s patents.

The jury agreed with Touchstream’s allegations and ordered the company to pay $338.7 million in damages for its patent violations.

Google intends to appeal this decision, as mentioned by their spokesperson in their statement to ArsTechnica.

top 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nbafantest 85 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This seems like a clear patent troll, and I cannot believe someone got a patent for just the idea of using your phone to play videos on your TV.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The three patents relate to “a system for presenting and controlling content on a display device.”

ah, so you mean all computing devices

[–] Jmr 12 points 1 year ago

miracast? Nope
Wii-U? Nope
Logitech Harmony? Nope
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Remote? Nope
Android Auto/CarPlay? Nope

[–] ShortFuse 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Touchstream met with Google in December 2011 but was told that the tech giant wasn’t interested in partnering with it in February 2012. For reference, the first generation Google Chromecast was released in 2013.

Not really patent trolling when you meet with the company, they say no, and then they launch their own version.

[–] nbafantest -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What did the other side bring to the table lol

Goggle almost certainly said we want androids to play videos on the tv.

And touch stream said "we don't actually have any capabilities to do that, pay us $1 billion"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Where did they say this?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.

[–] HelluvaKick 8 points 1 year ago

If you see Western of Texas jury and patent in the same sentence, you can know for a fact it is patent trolls.

[–] linearchaos 81 points 1 year ago (2 children)

wth, roku was 3 years old when that patent was filed.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Companies are notoriously guilty of hindering their competition illegally, usually they don't have a leg to stand on and fold under the weight of tech giants. I hope this is going to start a trend because amazon does the exact same thing.

[–] linearchaos 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd feel different if there weren't prior art in the form of another companies working product years before they filed the patent. Either that patent isn't valid, or its not close enough to a streaming box to count.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I suspect it is specifically relating to casting. The original Chromecast devices worked very differently than a Roku (but also supports the old casting).

[–] 2pt_perversion 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is using a 2nd computing device as a controller it seems, ie using your phone to cast a video to chromecast.

I actually can't believe touchstream won this initial case though because they are definitely a patent troll. The don't make any products themselves they just got an overly broad patent of technology that seemingly already existed (and was pretty obvious) and they go around trying to get companies to pay them licensing fees. And what I read of their patent doesn't even seem like it covers chromecast, they specify a client device -> separate server -> display device not a direct connection to a display device.

[–] Deftdrummer 1 points 1 year ago

The Chromecast still requires an Internet connection though so it's not truly a device to display unless you're mirroring.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Samsung also had casting stuff and I think some of that might predate Chromecast

[–] chinpokomon 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Might be thinking about DLMA? That wasn't just a Samsung thing but predates this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The first Miracast stuff was introduced in 2012, so that at least precludes Chromecast which apparently debuted in mid 2013. I'm pretty sure the Samsung thing - which was similar - predated that but was more proprietary and didn't have an official standard. I think it was just called something fairly generic like "Samsung Mirroring" etc as a predecessor to "AllShare"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nope, that one was more of an access method for media files. Samsung had these little services which you could mirror your whole screen to (not limited to certain apps like Chromecast), but generally only from Samsung phones.

[–] MargotRobbie 9 points 1 year ago

It has been a long time. They can just drag these lawsuits on and on forever.

[+] gendulf 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't Miracast work?

[–] dustyData 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Miracast is not the same thing technically speaking and to be honest, it is pretty much stagnant. Miracast looks, behaves and has the same experience that it had about 10 years ago. It only works over WiFi, is very clunky and tends to drop easily, has latency issues that will never be fixed. Google killed it when it stopped supporting it officially on Android 6.0. Essentially no device supports it for streaming anymore, only some still support receiving it because Apple has a zombie version of it on AirPlay, everything else requires rootkits, installing extra software, or otherwise jumping through hoops.

[–] chinpokomon 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Miracast is plagued by latency problems, but it is still alive. Android itself still has support, it is the Nexus 6 that Google dropped support, to only support their Chromecast. Microsoft Xbox can be used as a Miracast receiver and there is support for Miracast built into Windows 10+, both as a receiver and transmitter. While Miracast was built upon Wi-Fi Direct, (Wi-Di, I believe), it has been extended to work over a wired network too. The biggest difference is that Miracast is transmitting the frames over the network, so that the device transmitting needs to render the content, whereas DIAL and Chromecast are sending steam URLs, authentication, and transport messages to the Chromecast, which then is the device actually rendering. Chromecast is better for mobile device batteries, but I loath the proprietary nature of it.

[–] dustyData 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it has been extended to work over a wired network too

But that wire has to end at a WiFi transmitter at some point, it won't work purely over ethernet wire, for example.

Android itself still has support

Very few vendors have bothered to include it, mostly the Chinese low and mid-tier device manufacturers. But it is not widely supported since, I want to say, circa 2017.

[–] chinpokomon 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that wire has to end at a WiFi transmitter at some point, it won't work purely over ethernet wire, for example.

Yeah, not sure about that since those devices in question, where I've used it, have some Wi-Fi somewhere. I just remembered that there has been something done to provide it over a wired connection, but the device would have been wired to an access point. My specific use case was an Xbox wired to an AP and casting wirelessly from my laptop. So there is a wireless hop in the mix.

Very few vendors have bothered to include it, mostly the Chinese low and mid-tier device manufacturers. But it is not widely supported since, I want to say, circa 2017.

It was standard in Android. The only time I had ran into a situation where I haven't had it was Google Nexus 6+. I haven't tried a lot of different OEMs, but OnePlus and Microsoft have (had) it for sure. Samsung I have used their Smart View service, but I thought it was Miracast with Samsung specific extensions. Meta Quest 2, I was surprised seems to only work with Chromecast. However that suggests that you may be right. Most of my devices have support, but not all do.

[–] dustyData 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The operative word in your comment is the word “was”. Like, I'm not trying to be rude. I also wanted Miracast to grow up and become the thing to send video over local networks. But Google killed it dead.

[–] chinpokomon 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I selected "was" simply because I don't have enough understanding of the current situation to argue it from that standpoint.

In many ways, Chromecast is superior. Removing the rendering task from the tablet or phone, and letting the receiver manage that, it's significantly better than making the mobile device decompress the source stream and then decompress it for a Miracast receiver. The only real advantage Miracast has in this is that it doesn't need to receive firmware updates to keep it up to date with newer protocols. With Miracast being built in to TVs, and possibly implemented in an ASIC, it should be a universal fallback. With Android 4.2 it was a built in protocol to AOSP. What I didn't know was that it was actually stripped back out with Android 6. I thought dropping support was specific to Google devices only.

What really needs to be implemented is a non-proprietary extension to Miracast which goes back to the early Chromecast days when it was based on the DIAL protocol. It's incredible that we have to deal with so many proprietary standards from Airplay and Chromecast, and then also support the wifi alliance standard for Miracast.

[–] dustyData 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have different objectives honestly. Miracast was supposed to stream frames exclusively. Chromecast hands datastreams to the target device who then has to do the heavy lifting, sometimes even fetching the source itself. Entirely different use cases and tech stacks. I would like to show my PC screen on the living room. I can't do that without paying either Google or Valve (still Google), despite the fact it is not technically difficult or complex with contemporary technology to stream raw frame buffers to a screen. But that's patent trolling and monopolies. They will sap all the fun out of tech for those extra pennies.

[–] chinpokomon 2 points 1 year ago

They are different as you and I have both described, but when the sink device can support different streams, it has a significant advantage, because it automatically can support sinking frames from the broadcasting device and it removes the overhead of decompressing and then recompressing with practically assured data loss. It is yet another example of how patents, especially software patents, work against the original intent of the patent process.

[–] bigredcar 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole idea of playing videos on a computer is so heavily patented it's hindering innovation. Even ancient by modern standards MPEG-2 video is still patented in some countries. And then companies keep patenting new codecs and new playback methods ("on a phone", "on a tablet", "from a qr code") that pushes back the clock another 20 years. Same thing happening with AI, where they will make more money from licensing/lawsuits than actual innovation.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin 10 points 1 year ago

Corporations continue to hinder innovation through these pratices. I have to wonder what could be if they stepped off the field.

[–] Sludgehammer 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This headline is much funnier when your skimming headlines and misread it as "Google ordered to pay $339M for stealing the very idea of Christmas"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Whos.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin 22 points 1 year ago

submission statement:

Google has been ordered to pay $338.7 million in damages for patent infringement related to its Chromecast streaming devices.

The patents in question relate to "a system for presenting and controlling content on a display device."

Touchstream Technologies, Inc., the patent holder, claims that Google met with them in 2011 to discuss a partnership, but Google was not interested.

The first generation Chromecast was released in 2013, and the latest Chromecast with Google TV was launched in 2022.

The jury's decision is not final, as Google has said that it intends to appeal.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cost of doing business. They factor these bullshit minuscule payments into their budget.

[–] Motavader 14 points 1 year ago

Maybe. But it incentivises others to be patient trolls.

It's really sad that patent law doesn't require you to actually create the thing you're patenting.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah that is nothing for them a drop in a bucket thrown into the ocean

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Hey now, this isn't one of those trivial "do it on a computer" patents. This is a "do it on two computers" patent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So funny $339 mil. Its like I stole a Ferrari and I have to pay 10cent for damages.

load more comments