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: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @03:06PM
When I first read this headline a few days ago, my initial reaction was similar to yours. But, it's not the asshole who caused the wreck who is suing Apple. It's the victims of the asshole who caused the wreck who are suing.
As I read the story, and the facts soaked in, I decided that the family probably has a case. The technology exists to shut the damned toys off when you are driving. Apple has chosen not to make use of that technology. There are a number of different ways to look at this issue, but the family isn't being terribly unreasonable.
If a gun manufacturer were selling firearms that had no safety features at all, and someone's child were killed by that gun, you can be sure that they would win this suit against the gun manufacturer.
Going after Apple in this case does NOT exonerate the asshole who killed their child. He is still just as guilty, and remains just as culpable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Friday January 06 2017, @03:36PM
>technology exists to shut the damned toys off when you are driving. Apple has chosen not to make use of that technology.
A patent exists. We know what patents are really for...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 06 2017, @05:07PM
A patent exists. We know what patents are really for...
I don't think you do, and if you think it's to keep products off the market, you're wrong. Patents give a 20 year monopoly so the inventor can make money before everyone else. My eye implant is under patent until 2023, when all IOLs will be variable-focus. They would be fools to keep it out of the market (best $1000 I ever spent).
Apple holds the patent, so there's nothing preventing them from using it. Samsung, OTOH, doesn't have the tech unless they pay Apple.
The only trouble with patents is their expense.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 06 2017, @06:11PM
>> We know what patents are really for...
> I don't think you do
In corporations like Apple, tons of patents are used for competitors (defensively or offensively) rather than for actual products.
They have people on staff who try to patent any idea they can, whether it has any chance of turning into a real thing or not, because they don't want anyone else to have the patent should it be needed.
There are legitimate patents for sure, but there's the lesson of Moto's patent trove being worth more than the company, and the sadly usual "don't fight me, I've got 6000 patents" MADness.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:09PM
There's an even better argument, I think, for why the fact that some technology is patented shouldn't mean a damn thing in discussions like these: There are patents for perpetual motion machines.
Just because a concept is patented, doesn't mean it's actually possible. Apple is claiming in their patent that it *might* be possible, *in theory*, to provide such a lock-out mechanism for a cellphone. They make no claims that it can actually be implemented with current hardware or current techniques. It doesn't exist, it hasn't been tested, there's no developer or architect buy-in, not even a single equation or database query has been written yet. But these people want a court to force the devs to implement it just because someone in management had the idea? Does that mean I'm gonna get sued for lost revenue when I can't implement the magical lottery number prediction software that my manager figured would be a great way to bring in some extra income?
Of course, letting them be sued for not implemented something they patented but can't implement does sound like a great way to start fixing the patent system...
(Score: 2) by dime on Friday January 06 2017, @08:51PM
An interesting shift in the argument exists.
It could be argued that patents are traditionally for features or things that help the inventor gain profit, but the lock-out mechanism is a safety feature, or a limitation that a standard user would not desire. Should it be allowed that a car manufacturer patent the safety belt?
I think this tragedy is just a tragedy and our legal system is not really set up to handle such issues, but what if the phone in the case was a samsung phone and the parents are suing apple for creating a patent on a technology that is a safety mechanism and not a feature. This prevented samsung from including the safety mechanism to prevent the other driver from using google hangouts while driving.
(Score: 1) by ben_white on Friday January 06 2017, @04:00PM
Not even close. The US congress in all of its wisdom as specifically prohibited such suits against gun manufactures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act [wikipedia.org].
--
cheers, ben
(Score: 3, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Friday January 06 2017, @04:06PM
Seriously, the 2nd sentence of your own link says:
However, both [gun] manufacturers and [gun] dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible.
The law prevents manufacturers & dealers from being sued over crimes. It does not prevent them from being sued over accidents.
TL;DR: your source confirms the GP's statement.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday January 06 2017, @04:33PM
"Defective product" is the key word there. I do not think it applies to this situation, unless the word "defect" is stretched beyond belief.
(Score: 1) by ACE209 on Friday January 06 2017, @04:18PM
I think regardless of victim or pepetrator this certain case has no merrit.
In hindsight after an accident you can probably find multiple technologies which could have prevented it.
Are now all parties who could have possibly implemented / manifactured this technology guilty?
Though, it opens up the question how you can help to prevent similar accidents in the future.
But before you complicate your judical system further with regulations, think why there is no such regulations for books for example. And you don't see people reading books while driving.
People know that reading books while driving is stupid. And thanks to stories like this, they get the idea that this is the same for smartphones, entertainment-systems, etc...
Another part is that there is lots of software on that phones with the goal to grab your attention. Aren't the developers of that software the real culprits?
Only thing Apple can do is to offer a "silent" mode - where your phone shuts up. The responsibility to switch that on, when you cannot be distracted, is to you.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday January 06 2017, @06:53PM
I think [...] this certain case has no [merit].
[...]
Another part is that there is lots of software on that phones with the goal to grab your attention. Aren't the developers of that software the real culprits?
"Police say that the driver was using the FaceTime application," the story says. The developer of FaceTime is Apple, the company that's being sued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday January 06 2017, @06:31PM
Not likely. Just because a safety technology exists does not mean it has to be installed. How many successful lawsuits were filed against car manufacturers because people were killed in accidents in cars that did not have seat belts? It took a federal law in 1968 for all cars to be equipped with seat belts. A similar argument can be made about people killed because they didn't wear a seat belt.
There are applications in which FaceTime can be used in a moving vehicle. It would be crazy for Apple to keep it from working simply because the phone is moving at highway speeds.
Anyway, I repeat: this lawsuit won't go anywhere. This is an attempt to get a settlement from Apple, but they have no reason to settle because the law is on their side.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @09:02PM
Pintos, Mavericks, and Crown Victorias, I believe, were all known at various times for exploding after being rear-ended. I'm reminded of Nader's crusades against various vehicles, including the Chevy Corvair with it's rear engine. That auto industry has been subjected to many lawsuits regarding negligence.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/04/28/bookshelf-unsafe-at-any-speed-by-ralph-nader/ [macsmotorcitygarage.com]
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday January 06 2017, @10:35PM
Yeah, but these are negligent designs or dangerous defects. The iPhone is not defective because it just happens to allow a driver to do FaceTime any more than a car is defective because it does not require the driver or passenger to wear a seat belt before starting.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @10:44PM
Well, over time, our definitions of negligence can change. Again - Ralsh Nader changed an entire industry. All it takes are a few attitudes to change, maybe as the result of a couple lawsuits.
This isn't the first time the possibility of disabling a driver's cell phone has been discussed, after all. We recognize that a lot of damned fools are irresponsible. We've mandated that people wear seatbelts, rightly or wrongly. Why not mandate that a driver's cell phone is disabled for all except emergency phone calls? (911 emergencies, not 1-900 emergencies)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:00AM
Why not mandate that all software be free software while we're at it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:39AM
Such a mandate can't be demonstrated to make people safer, or to improve the efficacy of the software. To make a case for negligence, there has to be either a valid safety issue, or a demonstrable improvement to efficiency. The fact that I prefer free and open source software doesn't change the need to demonstrate a social benefit before mandating that all software be free and open source.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:13PM
We've mandated that people wear seatbelts.
We've mandated that people don't use cellphones.
My car doesn't refuse to drive if it thinks I don't have my belt on.
Why should my cellphone refuse to operate if it thinks I'm driving?
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:20PM
Actually, briefly back the 70's seatbelt interlocks were required on all cars (I believe trucks were exempt). So a for short period of time, if a new car did start without the driver's seatbelt fastened the car was defective. The law was quickly repealed after a large backlash and I think was only in effect for one model year - 1974 if I remember right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @08:35PM
How would this technology know the difference between being used by a driver or a passenger in a moving vehicle beyond asking the user?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @09:04PM
TFS and TFA claim that the phone uses the phone's built in camera to analyze the scenery visible from the phone. It's not difficult to distinguish between the driver's position in the vehicle, and any other position. The guy locked in the trunk need not worry about his phone being disabled.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:17PM
All I can think of here is the introduction to The Simpsons...
Not hard for a human who is physically present to look around at everything, sure. For a cellphone that's got a few square inches of dashboard to work with? Maybe not. Who knows, Apple has a *patent*, they do not have *software*. People have patented perpetual motion machines, that doesn't mean you can build one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:27AM
[If a gun manufacturer were selling firearms that had no safety features at all, and someone's child were killed by that gun, you can be sure that they would win this suit against the gun manufacturer.]
Mosin-Nagant 91/30. No safety features at all. Roughly 37,000,000 produced (according to Wiki). Indeterminate number of accidents since 1891. Good luck suing the manufacturer.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @08:58PM
No, that technology DOESN'T exist. Apple has a vague concept for a very crude technology that they claim could potentially be used for that purpose someday, but it would also have a huge number of other impacts. If it was implemented today, it WOULD put lives at risk, in addition to the class action lawsuits against Apple for removing features. Remember a few years ago when there were all those news stories about stuck car accelerators? Don't you want the person behind the wheel in such a situation to be able to easily dial 911? Even if you *still* don't think the driver should be calling, at least the passenger should surely be able to.
The state could also have prevented this accident by taking every citizen into custody immediately upon birth. There can be no drunk drivers if we're all in prison. But that doesn't mean you get to sue the state for not doing so every time someone does something stupid.
How about instead of suing the company when someone does something stupid with their product, then suing them again when their attempted safety mechanism breaks something else, then suing them again when it puts lives at risk, then suing them again after they remove it and someone does something stupid again...how about we just focus on the idiots who ignored the warnings already on the device, ignored the road signs, ignored the laws, ignored the billboards, ignored the TV ads, ignored the radio ads, ignored the internet ads, ignored their driving instructor, ignored their favorite TV shows, ignored twelve years of school health classes, and on and on and on. At this point, anyone who texts and drives damn well knows they're putting lives at risk, and they don't care. You aren't going to fix that with one more warning, and you aren't going to fix that by putting the people who actually DO care at greater risk.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:20PM
I did make allowance in my posts above for emergency calls. The phone could block normal use, but allow 911 (or whatever national convention) emergency calls while traveling. Texting, watching videos, checking facefook, or calling the wife to discuss dinner on the drive home - none of that is important, compared to operating a ton and a half vehicle in proximity to other similar vehicles, random pedestrians, and the odd child running into the street.
Bearing in mind that I've already stated that emergency calls should be enabled by default, the first part of your post amounts to reducto absurdum.
Again, I have zero problem with holding the miscreants responsible for their actions. Lock this fool up for life, for having killed a child. That's fine with me. But, Apple "enabled" this fool by providing a toy which has been demonstrated to be used carelessly, time and time again. Apple bears some responsibility here.
Remember the "no fault" insurance schemes? Basically, few if any accidents were 100% one person's fault. If I hit you, maybe I was 75% at fault, and you were 25% at fault. The concept has always stuck with me, despite the fact that the insurance industry has rejected it.
In this case, the damned fool who killed the child is 99.999% at fault, and Apple bears the remainder of the fault. Negligible, right? I would agree - until that negligible amount of fault adds up over the years to dozens of deaths.
Your initial claim that the technology doesn't exist? I'm not sure about that. Maybe Apple has patented some vaporware - maybe they can enable this feature within months. Either way, I want to see cellphones and other electronic toys disabled when you are driving. Let the discussion continue on the desirability of doing so.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:58PM
The company that produced his car also enabled him.
As did the government that built the roads.
Hell, look at the crash test ratings Tesla has been getting. Better than five stars in every category, beats 99% of other manufacturers. So why not sue every auto manufacturer that doesn't get those same ratings? That's much better than some vague patent, that's technology that already exists, is already in use, already saving lives. It works and we have proof. Maybe the kid would still be alive if their car had these same safety features, and you certainly can't argue that the companies are unaware of the risk, so why blame Apple and not the airbag? I mean if we don't care about requiring technology that actually exists, it seems pretty dumb to require technology that doesn't yet...