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.

Comments

This is fucking awesome

[mutantSushi]

This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters. Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.

Re:This is fucking awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple isn't accountable for his driving, they are accountable for not enabling a feature they patented for whatever reason (will be interesting to know) that would have prevented idiots like that driver. They also at the same time denied others the right to use this safety feature and similar features to prevent accidents.

I.e. Volvo patented the safety belt, they implemented it and let all use it royalty free for the betterment of humans, as safety first. Apple patents a safety feature, refuses to implement it and refuses to let anyone else implement said feature so that small girls can be killed by idiot drivers.

Re: This is fucking awesome

[LeftCoastThinker]

Don't know what you are talking about. It is extremely simple and I think even built in to the GPS be able to detect the speed of the phone within a few MPH (dx/dt). Detecting if the driver is using face time as opposed to a passenger is almost impossible for GPS alone, but yeah, it is felony stupid to text/facetime/play with your phone while driving. There should be a federal law that locks all features on a phone except hands free calls for drivers 16-24 years of age, considering it is consistently that "invincible" demographic that is killing people while driving and messing with the phone.

Re: This is fucking awesome

[Sassinak]

You would have to prove malicious intent.

Having a patent on an idea is not the same as implementing it.

At its simplest, it would be based on the accelerometer.. which means anyone traveling in ANYTHING would be barred..
On that Bus trip to see the family with the kids but want to facetime grandma (who's not along).. sorry.. We don't know its YOU driving, or YOU are just a passenger.
Want to facetime a co-worker/family member because you are scared in a bad area of town.. Sorry.. you are going to fast.. slow down to sub 5 miles per hour and then try your potentially life saving call with VIDEO evidence.

Basically having an idea and implementing it in a way that prevents the invention from turning a phone into a brick when going over 5 miles per hour is not the same. If you want to start from the premise that any patent not implemented is an attempt from banning others, then technically ALL R&D is warfare.. when in fact, most are capturing ideas for potential but are so costly and risky to implement, you would rather sell the concept to others (For them to implement, and take the heat)

Re:This is fucking awesome

[wvmarle]

I.e. Volvo patented the safety belt, they implemented it and let all use it royalty free for the betterment of humans, as safety first.

You can not patent "the seat belt". You can, however, patent a certain way of making seat belts, e.g. the locking mechanism that stops the belt when it's pulled quickly. Other manufacturers are free to implement a different version of the seat belt, such as the one used on airplanes for example.

Your example is more to how horrible software patents are, as it seems Apple patented an idea ("stop certain function driving") rather then a technology (which would be more like "a specific method of recognising someone is driving and using that to block certain functions on the phone"). There may be several ways to detect whether someone is driving (GPS speed, shaking of the vehicle, acceleration, a bluetooth link to the car, whatever) so the patent of Apple shouldn't be able to prevent someone to implement a similar feature, they would only be prevented from using a specific, non-obvious way of detecting whether the phone's owner is driving.

Re:This is fucking awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not awesome. There are a number of reasons why the patented idea might not have been implemented, some of which are completely out of Apple's control. It's a shame that your post has been modded up, because it's not particularly insightful or interesting.

I've actually read the patent, and although the idea sounds simple in principle, it's probably difficult to reliably implement. There are also some privacy concerns involved. Unlike you, I've actually read the patent, instead of quickly trying to get first post. There are two approaches described in the patent, depending on whether there are modifications to the vehicle to implement a zone where some features of mobile devices are locked out. It defines a zone, where the driver would sit, where many functions are locked out; however, there is also a "safe zone" where a passenger can operate the phone with all functions enabled.

If modifications are required to a vehicle, that requires action on the part of the vehicle's owner or manufacturer. Apple couldn't be legally responsible for someone else choosing not to implement their own technology. Basically, this involves a transmitter that has a very short range, only covering areas of the vehicle where the driver would sit, and thus would be unsafe for a phone to be used. I don't think Apple could be responsible at all for this not being implemented, unless the reason for it not being implemented was Apple unreasonably refusing to license the technology. I see no indication that this has occurred.

The other approach requires no modification to the vehicle, but requires two inputs from the phone's sensors. One is a "motion analyzer" that, in reality, is simply using GPS, cell phone signals, or a light sensor to determine if a phone is in motion. Using GPS would require that a phone have GPS enabled at all times, which is problematic for the privacy of users and adversely affects battery life. Using the signal strength of cell phone signals and determining if a phone is switching from one tower to another seems to be much less accurate at determining if a phone is in motion. The idea that changing brightness would indicate if a phone is in motion seems quite inaccurate to me. Although not mentioned in the patent, I suppose you could also use wifi signals and the signal strength of different base stations to estimate the position and determine motion. However, this also seems prone to error, and requires that the phone receive wifi signals. It's prone to error.

Just as problematic is the "scenery analyzer" that would require the user of the phone to pan its camera around to see if the phone is where the driver sits, or if it's in the "safe zone" of the car. It seems like this is prone to error and would require software that can reliably determine, based on images or video from the camera, where in a car the phone is located. The idea is that it would look for things like a steering wheel to determine if the driver is using the phone. The patent also suggests that the "scenery analyzer" could identify faces and determine how many occupants are present in the vehicle, presumably locking out features if there's only one occupant. Again, this seems prone to errors, and would be something that would be highly annoying to users. What happens, for example, if the car is operating at night? It's not safe to turn on lights inside the car at night while the vehicle is in motion, though I suppose this could be solved with an infrared light and camera on the phone. However, I'm not sure this could easily prevent a passenger from unlocking a phone for a driver, then handing it to the driver. It would also be a significant annoyance to people using phones will on mass transit vehicles, especially if they frequently start and stop moving. Would a user who boards a train and starts using their phone while it's stopped be interrupted and have to pan the phone's camera around every time the vehicle starts moving? It seems like this would be extremely annoying to users who safely operating their phones whil

Creative solution to patent trolls

[chiasmus1]

It seems to me that if more people sued when patents were not implemented, we might have less patents out there making every developers life worse. Patent trolls might think twice before setting up shop.

Re:Creative solution to patent trolls

[Demena]

I do not disagree. I was thinking of the way copyright is used to prevent circulation of materials such as movies, books, programs etc.

If I want a copy of The Game of Thrones and they will not sell it to me then 'piracy' is not (in my opinion) an unethical option. I was talking commercial copyright not personal copyright. Once someone has decided to commercially share they should not be permitted to 'select' an audience or even a specific distribution channel.

Take the iTunes stores as an example; I wish to purchase some products that are available in the US store but not in the Australian one. Another example; You Tube videos that 'have not been made available in your country'. Of course this is seldom a problem to people in the US.

Re:Primary factor

[geekmux]

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.

If a manufacturer patented the concept of a safety preventing a fatal accident, then failed to implement it resulting in the exact fatal flaw it was designed to protect, I could easily see fault lying with the patent holder.

Let's understand the REAL issue here; the PATENT prevented everyone else from implementing a safety.

Re: Applying tort to patents

[bombastinator]

You won't need it. This is a classic nuisance suit. I watched a lawsuit much like this in court once. A driver of a bobcat wasnt wearing his seatbelt when he lifted a load too high digging out a house foundation, and it fell into the foundation and he was crushed. He got absolutely nowhere.
If using the phone in such a way while driving was not illegal, they might have a case, but the driver broke the law and is solely liable. This sort of case is a 95% loser. Barring incopetence of the defense it has no chance. There is thhat 5% though. Also it will cost apple a good bit of money to win the court case which they will not get back. This case was likely taken on 33% contingency. The sleazeballs pushing it are looking for a portion of what it would cost apple to defwnd the case in a settlement. They might even get it if this was a one time affair. The problem is it isn't. Apple would have to keep on payong for every accident. There are two likely outcomes:

A. Apple offera tiny tiny settlement which is eaten almost entirely by the lawyers, screwing over the family, or

B. Apple pulls the trigger and demands a court case. It will cost them a couple hundred grand at least to puto bed, the plaintid's lawyers eat it partially because they will be desperately trying to avoid a situation where they will not only lose but also have pay apple's court costs.

So its give the family a pittance and reward the troll attourneys, or punish the attounrneys. I would really rather take B myself but it almost certainly won't happen. In the case of the bobcat thing it went to court because the plaintiff was so offended by the fact that the lawyers that talked him into it so badly screwed him that he screwed them back by excercizing his right to go to trial, forcing them to prosecite the ridiculous dog of a case and get hammered for it by the court.

Only in America

[Lisandro]

So, a guy crashes because he's videochatting while driving, and sues Apple for not developing a patent which would've prevented him from being an imbecile?

We're overdue for a meteorite and a start over.

Re: Applying tort to patents

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

You won't need it. This is a classic nuisance suit. I watched a lawsuit much like this in court once. A driver of a bobcat wasnt wearing his seatbelt when he lifted a load too high digging out a house foundation, and it fell into the foundation and he was crushed. He got absolutely nowhere.

This is probably true. But there is some chance you'll be wrong, even if a small one. I'm not a lawyer, but my best friend is and over the years he's taught me a lot about how the US legal system really works. Literally anything can happen in court. I agree that probably this case will go nowhere, but it depends on the judge and their personal biases and how stupid the jury is that gets the case. Believe me, the people suing are going to want a jury to hear this one. For example, a judge may think this is stupid but also feel that a jury, not him, needs to make that determination. Or you could have a crackpot judge who completely buys the argument that Apple is at fault here and it also goes to a jury. If you've ever served on a jury, you'll know that juries are not made up of the best and brightest of us. I've served twice and the last time I served, one day while we were waiting in the jury room for court to start, 3 guys on the jury got into an argument where they tried to top each other by each one of them offering proof that he was far stupider in dealing with new technology than the other 2 were. These are exactly the kind of people who serve on juries. And people who try to "win" an argument that they are stupider than everybody else are the kind of people who might be swayed by the arguments of the people suing.

By the way, you mentioned (but I didn't quote it) fear of the litigants having to pay Apple's court costs. That's almost impossible. Judges and lawyers both think that the US legal system is perfect as it is and doesn't need fixing and as a result judges are extremely hesitant to award legal costs even for frivolous lawsuits. Judges and lawyers believe that awarding such costs will lessen the number of lawsuits, which they universally feel is very bad indeed for them. Fewer lawsuits means fewer lawyers, which means fewer judges. Legal costs are awarded only in very egregious cases to send a message and most likely this case won't be one of them.