
Family Sues Apple for Not Making Thing It Patented - kristianp
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/12/family-sues-apple-for-not-making-thing-it-patented.html
======
shakna
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-
cause...](http://courthousenews.com/family-sues-apple-over-wreck-caused-by-
facetime/)

~~~
jaclaz
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_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_in_mirror_are_closer_than_they_appear)
"permanently and indelibly marked at the lower edge" of all smartphones ...

------
mcv
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.

~~~
simonh
> 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
> 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.

