3 ms·

Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that clai

by tyingq 4y ago

Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that claimed specific protective features that didn't work, or missed some obvious base safety features would probably get sued, yes. I don't know enough about the product to know if any of that has any merit, but I assume that's what the plaintiffs will try to prove.

bombcar 4y ago
There are many cases, such as: https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer-p320-pistol/42153865 https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer... In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull. The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc. How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.
- tyingq 4y ago
  >Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes They have talked about it: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-and-unwanted-tracking/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-a... Even on the main product page (https://www.apple.com/airtag/ https://www.apple.com/airtag/) ..."AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking".
  - bombcar 4y ago
    That's talking how it can't (or shouldn't) be used for crimes, but it starts to get a little close to Mr Incredible telling the old lady what not to do at some point, and that can be the point the lawyers aim at.

3 ms·

Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that clai

by tyingq 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago
There are many cases, such as: https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer-p320-pistol/42153865 https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer... In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull. The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc. How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.
- tyingq 4y ago
  >Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes They have talked about it: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-and-unwanted-tracking/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-a... Even on the main product page (https://www.apple.com/airtag/ https://www.apple.com/airtag/) ..."AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking".
  - bombcar 4y ago
    That's talking how it can't (or shouldn't) be used for crimes, but it starts to get a little close to Mr Incredible telling the old lady what not to do at some point, and that can be the point the lawyers aim at.