Kinda crappy but i'm sure google has tons of patents on things we would find trivial as well, as far as i'm concerned, let shitty mega corps duke it out.
Even after that, I believe Google only used their patents defensively: they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations. When I worked there, that was the impression the company gave off, and some initiatives like "Alliance for Open Media" the other commenter mentioned are in line with that.
I don't think Google is unique in this: older tech companies seem to have more aggressive patent strategies, whereas newer (.com era and onward) seem to dislike software patents but are forced to play the game by more aggressive companies and patent trolls. It's a drag on the industry IMO.
The biggest losers are newer and smaller companies, who haven't had enough time or resources to build up a defensive patent portfolio.
I’m starting to understand the capitalism is cancer arguments. Infinite growth is unsustainable. So inevitably companies that were once great need to use tactics like this to continue their infinite growth trajectory.
Sonos, in this case, is 'kind of' a younger company. They're not making huge profits and 'free cash flow from a giant' would be huge for them.
Mostly, patents are used defensively, so that companies big and small, don't get sued by trolls or steamrolled.
That's still a problem. Suppose company X has a real innovation that is worth billions of dollars and google sues them using "bogus" patents? Most patents suck, but there are some that actually cover real innovation.
Bogus patents will be dismissed, eventually. Going to court means commiting to a multiyear-process with no clear outcome if the other party has a hefty patent portfolio (regardless of how you characterize them). The process is quicker and more painful against those without defense,as Google learned when Apple decided to go "Thermonuclear" with patents.
There's a reason orgs like the Alliance for Open Media -- a Google-led initiative -- use licensing that explicitly grants you use of the patents owned by member orgs, but also explicitly revoke those if you sue any of them over a patent claim.
It also works as a way to keep incumbents in power. Say Google has 100 important mobile OS patents and Apple has 100 important mobile OS patents. It makes sense for them to cross-license. But a new mobile OS entrant has nothing of interest to Google or Apple and so no way to get access to those important patents.
The problem with that is that we the customers end up as collateral damage.
I'm not taking Sonos' part here though: like other people here pointed out, I'm pretty sure they patented some very obvious things which they should imo never have gotten a patent for in the first place.
edited to add this link for reference: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-t...
Now that Googles founders are no longer leading the company that might change, but so far their "do not be evil" still lives on in this regard, at least it did a few years ago.