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.

  • nbafantest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”

    • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      ah, so you mean all computing devices

      • Jmr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

  • monotremata@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.

  • bigredcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.