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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's bad law because, in the end, Apple had nothing to do with the accident. He could have just as easily been eating a Subway sandwich. Should Subway have been liable because the guy was a douche and their Sandwich bag lacked a mechanism to prevent him from eating it while driving?
To put it a more relevant way: car manufacturers have the technology to prevent rear-end crashes. Some production vehicles actually implement this (Infiniti has that system if memory serves). Automatic braking. This guy's car obviously didn't have it; the kid would still be alive if it did. Should they be able to sue the car manufacturer for leaving out a safety feature that the law doesn't mandate?
The law does not currently mandate that cell phone manufacturers prevent the use of cell phones while driving.
Now, if there was a legal mandate and Apple left it out, then that's a different thing, but that's not the situation. Apple broke no laws. Apple wasn't aware of the situation. It's well known by now that you shouldn't use a phone while driving, and they're not responsible for educating drivers on that fact. Nor are they responsible for dictating what their customers may or may not due with their technology.
Drivers are held solely accountable for the responsible operation of their vehicles. Apple was not operating the vehicle in any way, shape, or form. Sandwich or iPhone running facetime, the guy was being an idiot and should have known better. There is no excuse.
If this case succeeds, it paves the way for manufacturers to be sued for just about anything that goes wrong. This is not a sane thing. You may think it's okay because "Apple had the technology and should have implemented it," but you're not thinking about the precedent this would set.
We're talking about a body of resulting case law that would end up requiring manufacturers of ALL products to predict every possible misuse of their products, and actively prevent them, or end up the victims of every ambulance-chasing lawyer in the country (more than they already are). The patent is a red herring; well known technology exists to do lots of things, and the fact that it's patented is irrelevant. The manufacturers know about these technologies.
Forcing them to be responsible for their customer's sanity in such a situation is an unrealistic goal unless you want to destroy every hardware business in the United States.
Apple was not at fault. The driver was. The driver should be nailed to the wall for it, and passing blame won't help with that.
-- sigs cause cancer.
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.
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.