Netbooks were never good at anything except being a small POS computer. That’s why they died.

It’s not vaporware and Apple isn’t a patent troll. The tech just isn’t viable RIGHT NOW to make it work properly without hindering most legitimate usage. Plus it’d require automakers to buy into it. Apple isn’t hindering anything.

This is a perfect example of how screwed up officiating has become. How was this not flagged? It was after the play and clearly unsportsmanlike. I don’t care if Crabtree shouldn’t be wearing chains. Talib should’ve been tossed immediately.

Apple isn’t responsible even 1% and only a complete retard would think so.

I know that because it’s not out and I don’t automatically demonize a company because they haven’t released a patented idea that seems like a good idea. Apple doesn’t just abandon patented ideas. They test their implementation using current tech. They don’t publicize the results of that, nor is there a time limit on…

It will be thrown out by the judge as soon as he see it. It’s a moronic lawsuit that has no standing.

Millions of people.

Except they don’t have a viable way to implement it without hindering the millions of people that are simply passengers and/or use public transportation every day. That’s why they haven’t released it. The “needs” of the many outweigh the stupidity of the tiny minority.

(Going with this stupid analogy) Except it’s not the phone that killed the child. They should be suing the car manufacturer if anything.

No, Apple didn’t figure out how to make this distinction. If it worked, we would’ve seen something by now. The patent was approved over 2 years ago.

Apple isn’t encouraging anything. The manual that comes with every iPhone warns against distracted driving. Apple isn’t liable for stupid people.

Number 2 is irrelevant. Insurance will compensate for monetary losses. You can’t bring the child back so frivolously suing Apple is stupid.

Then they should sue the manufacturer of the other car, not Apple (if we’re going by your idiotic analogy).

Definitely not a strawman. Apple didn’t make a viable way to implement it. I’m sure Pepsi thought of things, but none of them were viable because they deal in the physical, not software like Apple. Apple’s method isn’t doable without screwing up the millions of people that use public transportation (or as passengers…

That’s from the article, whose author clearly didn’t read the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22driver+handheld+computing+device+lock-out%22&OS=

It’s actually easy to understand why they didn’t use the patent: they can’t tell whether you’re a driver or a passenger. It would screw with the millions of people who use public transportation every day.

It’s not the danger of their software. Stupid people are NOT Apple’s fault.

Apple didn’t let anything happen. They aren’t responsible for a driver’s idiocy. Apple didn’t finish developing this because it would be detrimental to all its users who are passengers, such as those who use public transportation. That’s plain to see.

Not Apple’s fault at all. This isn’t a deficiency in their product. It’s someone who has no clue how patents work making a cash grab. Just because Apple patented it doesn’t mean it’s viable NOW. They do that with a lot of stuff they don’t use until much later. Heck, the basic idea for the iPhone was come up with in…

Except they didn’t have the ability. They had a piece of paper with a patented idea. Doesn’t mean it was developed into a workable product. 95% of the stuff Apple patents doesn’t make it into products (or at least not for a long time).