SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
According to the latest figures available, US highway deaths increased by more than 10 percent year-over-year during the first half of 2016. One big reason? Distracted driving with mobile phones. It's a reality that now has one phone-maker in some unusual legal crosshairs.
Apple, maker of the ever-popular iPhone, is being sued on allegations that its FaceTime app contributed to the highway death of a 5-year-old girl named Moriah Modisette. In Denton County, Texas, on Christmas Eve 2014, a man smashed into the Modisette family's Toyota Camry as it stopped in traffic on southbound Interstate 35W. Police say that the driver was using the FaceTime application and never saw the brake lights ahead of him. In addition to the tragedy, father James, mother Bethany, and daughter Isabella all suffered non-fatal injuries during the crash two years ago.
The Modisette family now wants Apple to pay damages for the mishap. The family alleges the Cupertino, California-based technology company had a duty to warn motorists against using the app and that it could have used patented technology to prohibit drivers from utilizing the app. According to the suit (PDF) filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court:
Plaintiffs allege APPLE, INC.'s failure to design, manufacture, and sell the Apple iPhone 6 Plus with the patented, safer alternative design technology already available to it that would automatically lock-out or block users from utilizing APPLE, INC.'s 'FaceTime' application while driving a motor vehicle at highway speed, and failure to warn users that the product was likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner and/or instruct on the safe usage of this and similar applications, rendered the Apple iPhone 6 defective when it left defendant APPLE, INC's possession, and were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' injuries and decedent's death.
The patent referenced, issued by the US patent office in April 2014, is designed to provide a "lock-out mechanism" to prevent iPhone use by drivers. The patent claims a "motion analyzer" and a "scenery analyzer" help prevent phone use. The reliability of such lock-out services, however, has come into question.
"The motion analyzer can detect whether the handheld computing device is in motion beyond a predetermined threshold level. The scenery analyzer can determine whether a holder of handheld computing device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle. And the lock-out mechanism can disable one or more functions of the handheld computing device based on output of the motion analyzer, and enable the one or more functions based on output of the scenery analyzer," according to the patent.
Apple has not commented on the lawsuit, but it has said that drivers are responsible for their behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @02:48PM
Apple is obviously not to blame here. Although I wouldn't generalize to quickly, e.g. I do feel that gun makers are partly responsible for their gun's use. And the U.S. already has trade export laws that DO make a company responsible for who it sells to and what they will use it for.
The interesting idea is to mandate that all applied for and received patents should be used on any new product that company ships. That could reduce the number of bullshit 'idea patents'. (flying warehouse anyone?)
More to the topic, I would welcome some more correct legal advice on what it means for this case that Apple actually patented technology to prevent this kind of accident. That 'proves' they know of the danger, even found it to be real enough to spend research and money on, think other cellphone makers will need it as well and hope to sell the patent to them, but still decided to not implement it ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:03PM
That would defeat the very purpose of patents: To make it possible for the tinkerers of America to protect their ideas from the moneyed powers-that-be. If you must have a product ready to go, then that adds considerably to the cost of receiving a patent.
Come on, folks. For once in your lives, think more than 0.5 step ahead...
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday January 06 2017, @03:27PM
Although I wouldn't generalize to quickly, e.g. I do feel that gun makers are partly responsible for their gun's use.
Yes, but this case is more like a gunshot victim ignoring the gun maker and suing Apple because the shooter was distracted by an iPhone...
I think what finishes this case is that the driver had no reason or need to be using FaceTime while driving. If your phone rings or signals an incoming message, its your choice whether to respond. Otherwise, perhaps makers of chocolate bars should take steps to stop people eating them while driving? Not to mention the great elephant in the room of nicotine addicts toking on their cancer sticks while behind the wheel.
It would be more "interesting" if it involved poor design of, say, Apple Maps which is clearly intended to be used while driving.
E.g. there's a stupid feature in Google Maps when it detects congestion ahead and suggests an alternate route - it interrupts the map screen and you have to look at the screen, find and tap on a fairly small "yes" button if you want to accept the new route... Why not just "in 1 mile, turn left for alternate route, or stay on current road for original route" (Its a flippin GPS - it knows your speed and position!) For turn-by-turn navigation apps that know damned well when you're driving a car "never prompt the driver for input" seems like a pretty simple and obvious rule...
I think we need some strong industry standards for car user interfaces, since the makers seem to have the intelligence of a squashed hedgehog when it comes to replacing dedicated, tactile buttons with "modal" interfaces that force you to look at displays. The current trend for iPad-style touch sensitive controls in cars needs nipping in the bud.