• klangcola@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    After looking at the patent it’s clear it’s way too vague, generic and obvious. It should never have been granted. (I Am Not A patent Lawyer). For one the XMBC web interface from 2009ish is prior art.

    Technically the Kodi remote control app would be in violation of the patent, except it doesn’t use any “back end server system”.

    If you replace the words “display” and “video” with “speaker” and “audio” then the Spotify app would be in violation as well, as it allows changing the playback device to any of your logged in devices.

    Come to think of it, if you use Firefox on mobile to access YouTube, then “send tab to other device”, and send it to a desktop computer connected to a big screen, it could be interpreted as violating the patent as it’s using Mozilla’s “back end server” to relay the message

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      XMBC web interface just streams to a different client. Here, we have a client requesting to stream to another client, and synchronised by the server. The key part is the synchronisation between multiple clients.

      The patent also deals with a few other types of concurrent streams for other applications, beyond what Chromecast does.

      Come to think of it, if you use Firefox on mobile to access YouTube, then “send tab to other device”, and send it to a desktop computer connected to a big screen, it could be interpreted as violating the patent as it’s using Mozilla’s “back end server” to relay the message

      That may well also violate the patent. It would likely depend on whether the devices are synchronised, or if the desktop is just getting a link and streaming separately.

      Just because lots of people use it without paying doesn’t make a patent invalid. You only have to look at what happened with the patent for WiFi.