4 ms·

Family Sues Apple for Not Making Thing It Patented

10 points by kristianp 10y ago

shakna 10y ago
Courthouse News seems to be the source: [0], and has more of the rather scant facts around the case. [0] http://courthousenews.com/family-sues-apple-over-wreck-caused-by-facetime/ http://courthousenews.com/family-sues-apple-over-wreck-cause...
- jaclaz 10y ago
  Thanks, this: >The Modisette family said Apple’s failure to either program a shutoff into the FaceTime program or give strong warning about using the app while driving is particularly egregious given the app fully engages visual components rather than audio ones as with regular cellphone usage. The absence of an explicit warning seems to me like a "better" approach, as I don't think that the "they patented it and then they failed to implement it" can have much relevance in a Court. Still obviously if the driver of the car that caused the incident was videochatting, it is definitely his fault and not that of Apple, the same reckless driver - should have Apple implemented the "lock out" - would have probably be watching "Harry Potter" on a DVD viewer. The patent is this one: http://www.google.com/patents/US8706143 http://www.google.com/patents/US8706143 The "scenery analyzer", though clever, would imply access to the camera (which is obvious for Facetime, but not so much for texting), so - indirectly - it would mean more or less that you cannot cover your camera when moving faster than a given speed. On the other hand all car navigators/entertainment systems do boot up with a safety warning, I fear that what may happen would be something like "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_in_mirror_are_closer_than_they_appear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_in_mirror_are_closer_t... "permanently and indelibly marked at the lower edge" of all smartphones ...
mcv 10y ago
Sounds reasonable. A patent is supposed to represent actual existing technology, right? So by patenting it, Apple claims to already have this technology. So the assumption that they could do this but chose not to, seems fairly reasonable. I'm not sure if I actually like blaming this sort of accident on technology, rather than on the people being stupid with technology, but if this will discourage patent trolls from holding patents they're not using, hoping to catch someone else infringing on it, then it could be a net positive. At the same time, I'm hesitant about what other side-effects this kind of precedent might end up having.
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  > A patent is supposed to represent actual existing technology, right? But they don't imply any kind of pragmatic or cost-effective use of such outside the confines of a lab or test bed, do they?
- simonh 10y ago
  > Sounds reasonable. Not at all. Patenting something just means it's possible, not that it works well, or that it has no disadvantages which might make things worse, or that it's always reliable, or that there are no better alternatives. Just that it can be done. The logical extension of this argument would be that every car sold in america, and every single product usable in a car, must have every single possible automotive-relevant safety feature they can even think of implemented in it regardless of cost. After all, implementing such a feature in the phone would incur a cost, so if Apple can be compelled to include the feature then that argument should apply to every other company.
  - mcv 10y ago
    > Patenting something just means it's possible, It means a bit more than that. You don't patent the laws of nature, you patent real inventions. I'm aware that patent offices have gotten very loose with their criteria, but as far as I know, a patent was originally supposed to mean that you developed the thing you patented. Maybe there are disadvantages to it, but it has to be more than just possible.

10 points by kristianp 10y ago

Courthouse News seems to be the source: [0], and has more of the rather scant facts around the case. [0] http://courthousenews.com/family-sues-apple-over-wreck-caused-by-facetime/ http://courthousenews.com/family-sues-apple-over-wreck-cause...

jaclaz 10y ago
Thanks, this: >The Modisette family said Apple’s failure to either program a shutoff into the FaceTime program or give strong warning about using the app while driving is particularly egregious given the app fully engages visual components rather than audio ones as with regular cellphone usage. The absence of an explicit warning seems to me like a "better" approach, as I don't think that the "they patented it and then they failed to implement it" can have much relevance in a Court. Still obviously if the driver of the car that caused the incident was videochatting, it is definitely his fault and not that of Apple, the same reckless driver - should have Apple implemented the "lock out" - would have probably be watching "Harry Potter" on a DVD viewer. The patent is this one: http://www.google.com/patents/US8706143 http://www.google.com/patents/US8706143 The "scenery analyzer", though clever, would imply access to the camera (which is obvious for Facetime, but not so much for texting), so - indirectly - it would mean more or less that you cannot cover your camera when moving faster than a given speed. On the other hand all car navigators/entertainment systems do boot up with a safety warning, I fear that what may happen would be something like "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_in_mirror_are_closer_than_they_appear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_in_mirror_are_closer_t... "permanently and indelibly marked at the lower edge" of all smartphones ...

mcv 10y ago

Sounds reasonable. A patent is supposed to represent actual existing technology, right? So by patenting it, Apple claims to already have this technology. So the assumption that they could do this but chose not to, seems fairly reasonable. I'm not sure if I actually like blaming this sort of accident on technology, rather than on the people being stupid with technology, but if this will discourage patent trolls from holding patents they're not using, hoping to catch someone else infringing on it, then it could be a net positive. At the same time, I'm hesitant about what other side-effects this kind of precedent might end up having.

zimpenfish 10y ago
> A patent is supposed to represent actual existing technology, right? But they don't imply any kind of pragmatic or cost-effective use of such outside the confines of a lab or test bed, do they?
simonh 10y ago
> Sounds reasonable. Not at all. Patenting something just means it's possible, not that it works well, or that it has no disadvantages which might make things worse, or that it's always reliable, or that there are no better alternatives. Just that it can be done. The logical extension of this argument would be that every car sold in america, and every single product usable in a car, must have every single possible automotive-relevant safety feature they can even think of implemented in it regardless of cost. After all, implementing such a feature in the phone would incur a cost, so if Apple can be compelled to include the feature then that argument should apply to every other company.
- mcv 10y ago
  > Patenting something just means it's possible, It means a bit more than that. You don't patent the laws of nature, you patent real inventions. I'm aware that patent offices have gotten very loose with their criteria, but as far as I know, a patent was originally supposed to mean that you developed the thing you patented. Maybe there are disadvantages to it, but it has to be more than just possible.