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

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 ...