I am not a gun nut (don’t even own one) and I do not support the vast majority of lawsuits on gun manufacturers precisely because in almost every case, they have zero culpability in who pulls the trigger at what/who. If the gun was defective, sure, sue away. If the gun’s safety didn’t work, sure, sue away.

A patent doesn’t DO anything. A patent is an idea. That is precisely why this will (and should) be thrown out. Just because you have a patent doesn’t mean there’s even a design prototype, let alone an implementable product that works well nearly all the time (as would be required by consumers).

Patent =/= product. Patent means there’s an idea. It does not mean there’s a working, implementable or even feasible product that stems from that idea.

I will be extremely disappointed in any judge who does not throw this out.

Just because they are devastated doesn’t mean that Apple paying out is at all just. It’s not and opens the world up to suing a manufacturer for any misuse or lack of further development of products of any kind. Very, very dangerous precedent.

Even having technology to prevent misuse would not make this Apple’s fault. Said user would a) have to have this Apple tech on his particular phone, and b) have it enabled. Also, just because you can develop something to prevent misuse IN GENERAL doesn’t hold you liable for its misuse. I don’t see commercial truck…

I’m sure they will not be able to get any sort of compensation that will remotely give them justice in the wake of losing their child. I’d say that’s pretty much impossible. The family is suing because they’re looking for someone to blame that’s not him, even if there’s no grounds to blame Apple. I am sorry for their…

It’s not irrelevant in that any number of things could be just as distracting and could be misused via being used while operating a car.

There is nothing to say that they had the ability to prevent this. Having a patent does not mean they have an implementable design for a product that’s been developed and works well. All it means is they said, “ohh, what if we could do this, kinda by doing this” and got a piece of paper from the government saying…

You don’t know how patents work. Patents are an idea. Having a patent does not mean they had even remotely close to implementable technology that would work as a product.

While you’re correct, how exactly do you implement something that ONLY prevents the driver from using said app, while not restricting the use by a passenger as well? I’m gutted for the family as well, but there’s no way anything Apple could’ve done would’ve prevented this idiot from doing what he did, regardless of…

They’re under no such responsibility to do so. That is intellectual property that has no bearing on whether or not an idiot can crash into another person because they’re misusing a phone.

This is the only counterpoint I’ve heard that’s at least worth arguing. For that, I thank you. However, a patent is a piece of paper/plaque, and does not mean they had any well-developed tech that was ready to give to the masses. That’s where I think it stops. It protects the company’s good ideas from being stolen. I…

Excellent analogy!

Exactly!!

Honestly the tech is completely irrelevant. It’s grasping at straws. The idiot could’ve been distracted by his GPS or any number of other things in the same way. That, just like the app, as I’m told (since I do not have it), tells you to not use it while driving. Idiot used distracting phone app while driving, crash…

Except there was. I remember this story when it came out, and it explicitly states to not use this app when driving.

I do not support many of the suits brought on gun makers for shooting deaths where guns are purchased legally and through the proper background check channels (this doesn’t mean background checks are solid, but that’s a different topic to discuss). IMO that’s no different than suing a kitchen knife or hunting knife…

There could’ve been any number of logistical/technical details that stopped Apple from releasing said software. It very well may have made using the phone more difficult that it was distracting by itself. Who knows, but there was definitely a good reason for not releasing it, as it’s a marketing dream in this current…

This isn’t at all about a libertarian ideal. It’s about the fact that the man could’ve been doing any number of other things while driving that were not snapchat that could’ve distracted him just as much and caused the same result.