Slashdot Mirror
Family Sues Apple For Not Making Thing It Patented (nymag.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A lawsuit filed against Apple last week argues that, by not actually making a product that it patented, the company is partly responsible for an automobile accident. According to Jalopnik, James and Bethany Modisette are suing the tech company after a car crash two years ago that killed one of their daughters and injured the rest of the family. The driver of the car who hit them had been using Apple's FaceTime video chat at the time. The patent in question was first applied for in 2008, and describes "a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles," such as texting or video chatting. The complaint cites Apple's "failure to design, manufacture, and sell the Apple iPhone 6 Plus with the patented, safer, alternative design technology" -- in other words, lack of the program's inclusion -- as a "substantial factor" in the crash.
Then I could rope emotionally distraught people into my lucrative lawsuits, and give them nothing in return.
I would say that someone choosing to video chat on their phone while driving a car is 99% the main factor in that automotive crash.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Yes, it's awesome a company is being sued because some idiot was video chatting while driving.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Sueing Apple for using the patent system to block others from implementing this particular technology and deciding to not implement it themselves seems to be at the heart of this. Yes the idiot driving while video chatting is primarily to blame but when you block other companies from implementing a safety type device, are you not somewhat liable for situations happening because the technology is not allowed to be used?
Not that I think Apple should be held accountable here, but since Apple was the one who patented it, its patent status would not have been an impediment for them to include it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Who says others were blocked from implementing it ?
Ever heard of licensing ?
And as for "primarily to blame", the driver is TOTALLY to blame in this crash. Nobody forced the driver to use a mobile phone while driving, he/she made that concious decision to do it despite the well publicised dangers and laws against doing so.
But hey, it's good to try and pass the buck and sue someone with more money.
No. This is a clear cut case of irresponsibility on the part of the driver who was driving distracted. The problem with blame-chain games like this is that they are too easily weaponized to target specific links that happen to be political/corporate competition. The end-game is a society completely risk adverse to rocking the boat or trying anything new from fear of completely manufactured legal attacks.
No.
The end game is to get a piece of 618 billion dollars in cash.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Good luck to them. On my 15 mile commute to/from work literally every day I see multiple retards driving and texting at the same time, often not keeping in their lane, or even looking where they're going, even on the freeway.
I also see at least one accident every day where someone has driven into the back of someone else. Obviously self-regulation isn't working. It apparently accounts for so many accidents that it boggles my mind how using a cellphone while driving isn't already illegal here in AZ.
You say that like the job of the vast majority of safety mechanisms isn't to avoid or mitigate human error.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Apple have been known to sue about particular features regardless of the implementation. The chilling effects from their willingness to sue and their deep pockets are real, and a patent they hold will prevent others from implementing similar functionality.
Magic. Same way the "smart guns" are supposed to know that they're pointed at the bad guy. Everything's trivial when you live in a Star Trek fantasy land with automation eliminating the need to work and free stuff falling from the skies.
Perhaps, but this story has nothing to do with skype... the driver that caused the accident was using Apple's own technology... so any notions of Apple blocking other people from implementing the tech are inapplicable to the repercussions of this story. I'm unsure why my remark was tagged as flamebait... perhaps it was because I expressed a sincere sentiment about my estimate of the intelligence level of someone that would try to use a video chat system on a hand-held while they are supposed to be concentrating on driving?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Which by the way, every safety patent that was not implemented could be fertile new work for patent trolls
Actually if they started doing this it might help eliminate patent tr-olls. Patent trolls have traditionally been the ones holding the patents. Getting competing tr-olls on the other side trying to find unused patents would make it harder to stockpile thousands of unused patents. This might make patents more of a use it or lose it situation which would probably be a good thing overall for innovation. If you had to actually implement and sell your patented idea in order to hold on to the patent this would make patent stockpiling by patent trolls much harder. Right now what we have is companies patenting every crazy idea that they come up with even when they have no plans to implement it just so they can collect royalties or flaunt their patent war chest. This makes it hard for small people without war chests to do anything without infringing on something. This is the exact opposite of what the patent system was designed to do.
** "Filter error: Lameness filter encountered" -- Apparently I'm not suppose to talk about tr-olls on slashdot even when the article is about them.
Hope this gets thrown out in the court. It is driver's responsibility not to use distractions while driving. He used the gadget / app at his own discretion. I would not want gadgets to start being overly smart over what humans can decide.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
Nope. IF it was legal to drive while facetiming this would be true. There was a shoert period when it was but that was many years ago. Apple probably dropped development after it became illegal to text and drive.
The guy driving while playing with his phone was breaking the law and is solely liable. This is nothing but a nuisance lawsuit designed to extort a few bucks from apple, of which the plaintiffs will see next to zero.
Yeah, the suit would make more sense if the guy that caused the accident was using e.g. youtube on a samsung phone, and one of those vendors had at some point been litigated against by Apple to prevent them from implementing the feature.
Someone had to do it.
I've seen so many comments on here and other blogs about how Apple is to blame because they're "blocking" other's from using the technology. Or it's Apple's fault for not implementing it in their phones.
First, the idea sounds simple in concept until you actually look at the implementation. Can my wife not FaceTime/Skype while I'm driving? Can I not use it on the bus, taxi or train for work (which I do frequently... well, I try to avoid the bus)? How do you handle rare occasions where you can't get a consistent fix on the phone's location? If Apple could think of a good, reliable way of implementing this without regularly interfering with legitimate operations I'm pretty sure they'd be all over it because they have a PR department on steroids.
Second, this is against the law in California... so why isn't the California Highway Patrol being sued for not enforcing the law? Why isn't the car manufacturer being sued for not having a safety device that requires both hands on the wheel (there are practical problems with as well, I'm just using it as an argument)? Why aren't they required to have safety radars on all their cars (the recent Tesla video shows it might have prevented this accident)? Why isn't the cellular provider being sued for providing data service to a customer that they can tell is traveling over a certain speed? (same practical problems apply here).
Finally, almost anything can be deadly or can lead to deadly consequences. If you drop M&M's in your car and bend down to pick them up while speeding down the freeway and kill someone it is NOT M&M's fault for having a poorly designed bag. It is your fault for making a stupid, reckless decision. Period, end of story.
I want to believe this is a case of grieving parents being maneuvered by an asshat lawyer but who knows.
It doesn't matter - Apple is not using external counsel. They have a whole stable of lawyers that they can pick from in order to make this go away.
Do you really think that a company of Apple's size doesn't get sued constantly by anyone who can dream up any cause of action that might have a slight chance at getting them money? Between shareholders getting pissed because they bought stock at the wrong time to bullshit like TFA, they probably have their own private entrance at the courthouse for dealing with this garbage.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That's your bar? You right to "feel" safe is priority over others rights as long as it doesn't violate their Civil Rights? Distracted driving isn't going to disappear just because people wouldn't be able to use mobile devices.
You don't want to restrict the rights of the person swinging their arm. You want to restrict everyone's rights. You're telling my kids that they can't play their games or text their friends during our 90 minute drive to grandma's house. Your safety is unaffected by them. What you want to call "reasonable safety" I would argue is quite unreasonable.