Google ordered to pay $339M for stealing the very idea of Chromecast
Google ordered to pay $339M for stealing the very idea of Chromecast
A US District Court has ruled that Google has infringed upon three patents with Chromecast products. Read on to know more about it!
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.
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.
85The three patents relate to “a system for presenting and controlling content on a display device.”
ah, so you mean all computing devices
31miracast? Nope
Wii-U? Nope
Logitech Harmony? Nope
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Remote? Nope
Android Auto/CarPlay? Nope12
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.
13If you see Western of Texas jury and patent in the same sentence, you can know for a fact it is patent trolls.
8
wth, roku was 3 years old when that patent was filed.
81Companies 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.
41It has been a long time. They can just drag these lawsuits on and on forever.
9
Please invalidate their patent, and somehow get a version that I can use in Firefox.
56Wouldn't Miracast work?
4Miracast 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.
1
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.
37Corporations continue to hinder innovation through these pratices. I have to wonder what could be if they stepped off the field.
10
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"
37And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Whos.
14
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.
22Cost of doing business. They factor these bullshit minuscule payments into their budget.
15Maybe. 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.
14Yeah that is nothing for them a drop in a bucket thrown into the ocean
8
Hey now, this isn't one of those trivial "do it on a computer" patents. This is a "do it on two computers" patent.
10So funny $339 mil. Its like I stole a Ferrari and I have to pay 10cent for damages.
3