Family Sues Apple For Not Making Thing It Patented (nymag.com) 455
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.
I should have been a lawyer (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I could rope emotionally distraught people into my lucrative lawsuits, and give them nothing in return.
This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's awesome a company is being sued because some idiot was video chatting while driving.
Re:This is fucking awesome (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?
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If Skype implemented it, Apple would have to implement it too due to customer pressure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to go down the chain of events that it would have taken for this action to have made a difference in th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Drivers are totally to blame in the vast majority of crashes where seatbelts and airbags save lives, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
The end game is to get a piece of 618 billion dollars in cash.
Re: (Score:2)
That too, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a clear cut case of irresponsibility on the part of the driver who was driving distracted.
Right, and in that sense the crash is not, even in a small way, Apple's fault. None of this changes the fact that a useful safety feature is being kept from the public because the patent holder is a NPE (for the purpose of this patent, anyway).
If there was another way to get the message out, that would be good, obviously. But in America, it usually takes a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the answer is just to tear down the cell towers along roadways.. People will just work around whatever limiters are put into the phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple's patent enable the distinction b/w a driver and passenger? Or does it disable FaceTime period when in motion? As others have mentioned elsewhere, the lawyers are going after Apple b'cos they are the deep pockets here, not the stupid driver who was busy FaceTiming. But if that person was a passenger in the car, instead of driver, and someone else who was NOT FaceTiming was driving, that girl would still be alive. So Apple is not the one to blame here: the driver is!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You must not have been paying attention to the past 50 years.
Re:Who's rights are paramount? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is fucking awesome (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.
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that like the job of the vast majority of safety mechanisms isn't to avoid or mitigate human error.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:2)
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:4, Informative)
TFA is misleading. The lawsuit points out that Apple knew that there was a potential danger here. It knew that people would use the service irresponsibly, and went to the trouble of developing a safety mechanism to counter the problem. I imagine they didn't implement it because it would be hard to differentiate between someone driving and using Facetime and someone in the passenger seat or on a train or a bus.
Anyway, the fact that Apple knew about it and went to the effort of developing a way to mitigate the danger creates the potential for some liability. There is actually a history of this kind of lawsuit. Years back a guy tried to sue the manufacturer of a table saw for not including technology to stop the blade when it contacted human skin. Car manufacturers have been sued for not including safety equipment or mitigating things that confused drivers like the carpet getting stuck between the accelerator and the brake.
Personally I don't think it has merit, but the fact that it keeps coming up suggests that there is at least a need for some clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, because they have the patent, no other company can make a phone with that feature even if they wanted too (well with out paying apple), thus locking the entire market out from having the safety feature in their phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, because they have the patent, no other company can make a phone with that feature even if they wanted too (well with out paying apple), thus locking the entire market out from having the safety feature in their phones.
Complete bullshit.
The patent applies to a particular implementation.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever read a patent? They tend to try to be written to cover almost every practical implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not until Apple sued them for violating their patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Better they should sue the car manufacturer, for not installing a cutoff device to detect when the driver is distracted and summarily shut down the vehicle (possibly requiring service at an authorized dealer center to reactivate the vehicle?). I know - maybe they can sue Colt, Smith & Wesson and Charter Arms for not sending someone to shoot the registered own
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:4)
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.
Except, no, a patent does not give you the right to manufacture something. It's a right to exclude others from manufacturing your invention (or selling, or using, or importing it). For example, say I get a patent on a chair - seat, 4 legs, and a back. I can sue you if you make a chair. But can I make one? What if some AC has a patent on a stool - seat, 4 legs? I can't build chairs without infringing his patent. So my patent doesn't give me a right to make anything.
Apple's patent doesn't give it a right to make a lockout system, just prevent others from doing so - not that they've done such. So, no, the family has no claim whatsoever. This is just a money grab by some lawyer who thinks he can make headlines to extort a big settlement.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Funny)
How deliciously ironic.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm also pretty certain that implementation of a device that is designed to interfere with a communications device would need to be mandated by law. Looking at th eaten stuff, it looks like it would be a weird combination of motion sensors via GPS, The camera being activated, "seeing" scenery motion, and deducing that the person is TWD'ing from that. Other implementatinos require modifications to the vehicle. Right away, I can defeat the first one by simply putting tape over the lens, or holding the phone
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: This is fucking awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Creative solution to patent trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>"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. "
1) Most software patents are bogus, almost completely. This would be one of those. They really shouldn't exist in the first place.
2) I do agree, however, that patent holders should attempt to actually use and create with their patents in a "reasonable" timeframe or automatically lose them.
3) Suing companies for NOT doing something to make up for stupidit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to do anything; it just is.
Requiring people to share everything they create is not workable in any world I want to live in.
Re:Creative solution to patent trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
So I'd be forced to sell defense systems to ISIS? (Score:2)
> example; You Tube videos that 'have not been made available in your country'.
That's quite frustrating, I'm sure.
> Once someone has decided to commercially share they should not be permitted to 'select' an audience or even a specific distribution channel.
So if I write some software for United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, designed to help aid workers avoid danger, I have to sell the system to ISIS as well? While it's certainly frustrating to have trouble watching you
Some real examples I can share (Score:2)
While most of my work is in security, and a long explanation would be necessary to understand an example, here are two simple examples I can share.
I wrote some software that would be very useful to spammers, and I've owned a couple of hosting companies. In both I "selected my audience", I declined to sell the software or hosting services to spamming scumbags. I think it's good that I can, and most people do, decline to provide software and services to spammers. I even put the following in my license file t
Re: (Score:2)
You are really good at debate. But to me 'debate' is not the point. The point of a debate is to win regardless or veracity, accuracy or anything really. Debate is a game and pointless except for the fact that it currently drives almost everyones opinion.
Both of us know that ISIS (Daesh please, it is more insulting) would not give a damn about copyright or even paying you and would just take it anyway. So your point was moot before you even started typing. A good debating technique but of zero societal v
Re:Creative solution to patent trolls (Score:5, Informative)
Requiring people to share everything they create is not workable in any world I want to live in.
I think it is reasonable to require them to share it with the government if they want to copyright it. Otherwise, they can either not share it with anyone, share it only with people they trust, or release it into the public domain.
The original intent of copyright is to promote the availability of creative works by allowing the creators to sell copies of the work for profit for a limited amount of time. The practically eternal copyright term notwithstanding, the public is expected, for the cost of enforcing copyright, be given the work once the term expires, to consume directly or to produce derivative works from. However, if copyright holders can withdraw the work before the term expires, for example, by using encryption, region lock and other technical means to remove the work from circulation, then it will never end up in public domain. This breaks the contract between creators and the public and promotes the existence of a rent-seeking class that doesn't produce new content, but profits from it nonetheless.
So by requiring them to share it with the government, we can guarantee that copyrighted works will eventually land in the public domain, and not simply disappear forever.
Primary factor (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.
Re:Primary factor (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.
Re: (Score:3)
This motion-inhibiting implementation is very similar to the litigation trajectory that gave us fire codes, fire exits, occupancy limits, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, sprinklers, and no-parking red fire zones.
That shit came to pass after the cost of litigation exceeded the cost of compliance.
Customers, not the patent, caused it to not be don (Score:3)
> Let's understand the REAL issue here; the PATENT prevented everyone else from implementing a safety.
Clearly Apple's patent didn't cause Apple to not implement it, so what do you think caused that? I would think that customers want to use their phones while riding in cars, buses, etc. Customers won't buy buy a phone that locks itself when moving.
Suppose Apple tries to get really clever and try to guess whether the person using the phone is the driver or a passenger, and they advertise this "safety fea
Re: (Score:2)
Let's understand the REAL issue here; the PATENT prevented everyone else from implementing a safety.
(Hyperbolic emphasis removed.)
I presume you mean "safety feature." In that case, you need to also understand that the fellow was using Apple's products and functionality, so their electing to implement or not implement the feature and thus blocking anyone else from developing the same has no bearing. You might also want to look at other instances where one company has patented some feature or product and that did not block other companies from producing highly similar features or products based on alterna
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Absolutely, and Apple is being sued because it has a bigger pocketbook than the video-chatting driver or his family.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but that driver and his measly liability policy doesn't have the deep pockets that Apple has.
Re: (Score:2)
Driver error/stupidity is the main factor in the vast majority of automotive crashes in which seatbelts and airbags save lives. That doesn't mean that seatbelts and airbags should be kept from public use by non-practising patent trolls.
In civilised countries, this is what a coronial inquest is for. The coroner would probably recommend that the patent be implemented or opened in the public interest, and the company holding the patent would be shamed or regulated into submission. But this is the good ol' USA,
Good. Its a freaking epidemic. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I have an idea. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah they're already proven dumbasses so they probably wouldnt pull off the road when the car was powering down, theyd probably just keep driving, so there would be road blockages everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Vt oatenting the tech then not implementing it, basically camping on it so stopping others doing it too.
Re: (Score:2)
OK well firstly Mr. liberal high-and-mighty who's
too afraid to use their actual username... if you had to actually live with the crime and drugs coming over the border that we have to here then maybe you'd think differently.
Secondly he isn't sherriff any more anyway.
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Deep Pockets (Score:2)
There is one reason and one reason only for including Apple in this lawsuit, they have deep pockets. The family is after cash, period.
They are either hoping Apple will settle or, because of the way the US legal system works, if it goes to court and Apple is deemed even slightly at fault they will be responsible for all of the award the other responsible party(ies) can't cover.
see: Joint and several liability
Fortune hunters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the article summary, "a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles," Apple apparently disagrees?
Yes, you and I both know the reality. And I'd be ecstatic if the entire patent system disappeared up its own hypocritical butthole and never returned. But if Apple wants to make such claims then they can have their day(s) in court to explain how their patent claim isn't actually claiming what it says it claims while still
Only in America (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
A guy crashes because he's videochatting while driving, and the family who he crashed into sues Apple for not developing a patent which may have prevented him from being an imbecile.
Agreed on the meteorite though.
This is just stupid, no matter the "real" motive (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is apparent that you failed to notice that the young woman was not the one who was using video chat at the time of the accident, rather, the driver of the *other* vehicle was.
As another commenter has pointed out, it is most likely that the driver of the other vehicle did not have deep enough pockets to be worth going after.
Re: (Score:3)
And so I hope that Apple fucking buries the avaricious family for being assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh so all those perpetual motion machines that have been patented are all ready to go? Cool.
Here's an explanation or two (Score:2)
> Apple better have a really good explanation for why they did enable this moron to do so while being able to disable him.
Here are a couple of really good explanations:
Yes, Apple could make the phone completely lock itself any time it's moving. Customers, who like to like to use their phones while riding in cars and buses, would then not buy their product, they'd sell no phones, and nobody would be protected. A few parents might want this safety feature on their kids' phones, so maybe they'd still sel
Re: (Score:2)
Have you installed that app yet? Why not? (Score:2)
There's an app for that. Have you installed it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should replace the patent prohibition with mandatory royalties to the patent holder. That way the inventor gets paid and the technology gets used.
Although I like this idea, how do you decide the royalty amount? Is it 10% of the cost of the final product? 50% of the cost? 10% of the profit? What if the patent is only a small part of the product? What if the patent is practically the entire product? I don't think you can set a single royalty amount that works across the board. The only real option would be for either have the two companies decide or the courts to somehow decide on a case by case basis which is pretty close to what we already hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are a bit different. We have a semi socialised medical system in the first place. But it spreads wider than that. If you are injured in a car accident your medical needs will be covered. The car must be registered and there is a mandatory (injury) insurance component in that. But that just determines where the bill will go. The the injured will all be covered because necessary medical treatment is always covered here (social medicine). So even if the car was not registered and you were racing it in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because the cause was someone being irresponsible. Apple is not at fault there.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiot caused the accident. Idiots do. We would not need road laws (or many, if any, other laws) but for idiots. But I know no one not even excusing myself who is not an idiot at times. So we have rules and the less idiotic obey them - mostly. Probably proportional to idiocy
But we are talking about social responsibility here. Something that is in some measure, already required of a company (or a person).
Let us look at a slightly different software situation. Say I write and sell a program, some s
Re:MSJ (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
and the lawyers will get paid.
and paid.
and paid again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Applying tort to patents (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now as to being able to identify if it's user is the driver, unless the driver decided to tell it, that's total B.S. to put it nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Waze's method is pretty simple, it just says "Typing is disabled while driving. Please try again when stopped." and has the option to choose Passenger and type away.
Re: Applying tort to patents (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In most places getting a driver's license requires a theory test, and part of that is laws related to driving.
Even if it didn't, ignorantia juris non excusat.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Courts around here require you to be a more or less sane person if you want to drive a car. If you try to use the defense that you can't be expected to have common sense, the least you can expect is for the judge to invalidate your driver's license because by your own confession you're unfit to handle a vehicle.
If you complain enough and piss off the judge he just might incapacitate you. And try to get out of THAT again.
You better accept that you're expected to have common sense when going to court around here. That's why the whole "I'm too stupid to conduct my own life and hence I sue the company not telling me to not do $stupid_thing" isn't flying here.
Except the driver is dead, so who cares if the court wants to revoke their license.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Applying tort to patents (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Applying tort to patents (Score:3)
Re: Applying tort to patents (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Applying tort to patents (Score:4)
I'll get the popcorn.
No matter the outcome the only winner will be the Lawyers
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if there's actually a law on that (I suspect there is), but it's not really relevant. A firearm is deliberately designed to harm and/or destroy things. A phone is not. These two products should have different standards applied.