Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Family Sues Apple For Not Making Thing It Patented (nymag.com)

Posted by msmash on from the stranger-things dept.

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.

9 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. This is fucking awesome by mutantSushi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This is fucking awesome by ahabswhale · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it's awesome a company is being sued because some idiot was video chatting while driving.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    2. Re:This is fucking awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:This is fucking awesome by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since the idiotic driver that caused the accident was using Apple's own Facetime video chat at the time, how does Apple blocking others from implementing this technology come into play here?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    4. Re:This is fucking awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:This is fucking awesome by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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});
  2. Creative solution to patent trolls by chiasmus1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Primary factor by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Primary factor by geekmux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.