California Man Brings Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple For Not Preventing Drivers From Doing Stupid Stuff
from the white-knight-and-his-windmills dept
There's lots of "me too" litigation flying right now. Multiple plaintiffs have advanced the theory that because terrorists kill people and terrorists use social media platforms to communicate, it somehow follows that social media platforms are at least partially responsible for terrorists killing people.
Bed legislation tends to follow tragedies. So does bad litigation. In the aftermath of a car accident that killed a five-year-old girl, a lawsuit was brought against Apple for supposed negligence -- solely because it has yet to implement a patented lockout mechanism that might have prevented the driver who killed the plaintiff's daughter from using Facetime while driving.
The key is "might have." The key is also a little understood aspect of intellectual property like patents. Just because a patent is acquired does not mean the company obtaining it has the means to put it to use. Nor does it indicate it ever plans to put the patent to use. It's an exclusionary process meant to keep others locked out for a certain period of time more than a leading indicator of any company's immediate plans for the future.
Partly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of patent filings, a "me too" class action lawsuit has lobbed into a California court, piggybacking off the negligence lawsuit filed late last year.
A California man has levied a class action lawsuit against Apple in Los Angeles Superior Court over the company’s decision to not implement technology that would prevent drivers from texting while behind the wheel.
Julio Ceja, who was rear-ended by a driver allegedly distracted while using her iPhone, isn’t seeking monetary damages (save for legal fees). Instead, Ceja hopes Apple will be forced to halt sales of its iPhones in The Golden State until a lock-out mechanism preventing people from using their smartphones while driving is implemented.
The lawsuit [PDF] proposes a potential class of EVERY PERSON IN CALIFORNIA, thanks to the popularity of cell phones and the increase in distracted driving accidents.
Of course, this legal effort attempts to shift the burden of personal responsibility to cell phone manufacturers. Ceja's concerns about distracted driving may be justified, but his desire to see the government force Apple to implement an as-yet-unused patent by blocking phone sales is thoroughly misguided. The lawsuit only targets Apple and only because Apple is in possession of this granted patent. The state's millions of Android (and tens of Windows phone) users would presumably be free to rear end Ceja and others while distracted by their non-iPhones.
Chances are this will be tossed before it advances too far, with the court pointing out that Apple is free to handle its unused patents however it feels and that any solution lies with the state's legislature, rather than the court. Of course, this will result in misguided legislation that targets cell phones specifically while ignoring all sorts of distracted driving that has nothing to do with electronic devices. But this solution makes a hell of a lot more sense than a court-ordered injunction that allows distracted drivers to offload their culpability on an unused patent. And it would the responsibility where it should be: on drivers who pay more attention to their phones than the road.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, car accidents, class action, julio ceja, patents
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And that's the biggest problem in all this. How does it make any sense to grant a patent to an applicant in the first place if they don't have an actual working model?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And that's the biggest problem in all this. How does it make any sense to grant a patent to an applicant in the first place if they don't have an actual working model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be silly, now... we all know that the best use of patents is to lock up clever technologies so others can't possible use them. Nega-patents, you might say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then when you competitor accuses your product of infringing on a patent, you have a card of your own to play in response.
If someone were to invent the wheel today, competitors and patent trolls would immediately patent axels, spokes, rims, tires, "using a wheel on a vehicle", "using a wheel to move objects", "using a wheel on a road", etc. etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about "time of filing"? The entire point of patents was to reveal useful techniques to the public—if all you're saying is 'this would be a great idea but we have no clue how to do it', go home. While this lawsuit seems silly, I do like the idea that a patent filing can be used against the filer. If Apple claims this isn't doable, they'd be admitting to a fraudulent patent application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thousands of patents are granted every year and most are never implemented. Most shouldn't be given patents but that is a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like the nuclear fusion powered interplanetary flaying saucer patented by British Rail? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you read the complaint mr Cushing?
Since the complaint is quoted and linked in the article I would guess the answer to your silly question is yes.
Is there something incorrect in Tim's summation of the complaint or are you just being an ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whoops. My bad. The complaint isn't quoted, that's a quote from the Techspot article. But still, the complaint is linked, not once, but twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We made it to the big leagues!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've noted this when this story's come up elsewhere before - actually, Apple *have* implemented such technology, it's called Airplane Mode. It's easy to turn on and off, and ensures no texts can be sent or received, they just can't force people to use it.
So, it seems interesting that what these lawsuits are trying to do (apart from the obvious money grab) is to remove decision making from the hands of the public and put it into the hands of corporations. I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to the earlier story, Apple's patent took it one step further:
That of course takes the lawsuit a further from credibility: Before the driver can even ignore the in-car dock, they first have to install it. Not just a holder, but a dock that connects to the car's ignition system, hazard lights and internal memory.
No such system comes in ANY car. If a third party system existed, it would void the warranty on your car. (Back in the mid-2000s here in Manitoba the government used increased car insurance premiums to pressure people into installing RFID ignition immobilizers. But then if say your power door locks stopped working, the immobilizer was blamed and you couldn't get warranty repair.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the USA, voiding the car's warranty would be illegal under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. But if they showed it really did damage the power door locks or whatever, they wouldn't have to fix that. Writing to the car's memory would be a bad idea, but the dock could keep its own log easily enough. Hooking into the hazard lights and ignition switch is something add-on security systems probably already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> phones that won't allow the vehicle to turn on until the
> device is docked and in hands-free mode.
What if you don't own a cell phone or didn't bring it with you, left it at home, etc.? Does this docking device just assume everyone has a cell phone and won't allow the car to run until some phone is shoved into the dock?
And what about passengers? It would be a simple thing when there are multiple phones in the car to use one as an ignition activator and still use one of the other phones for all the bad stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... Patent vs Nanny State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, Apple has a patent on this technology preventing Android from implementing this life saving feature.
Really does make you wonder just where all this stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for that; it's by far the best thing I've seen online today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also sue
Also sue the council for creating a road on which you can use a phone while driving.
Also sue the government for failing to stop both earlier points.
Also sue the citizens for not forcing the government to `have acted' already.
Also sue the gods for not performing a miracle for the girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lockout Only the Driver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lockout Only the Driver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lockout Only the Driver
Just wait until the lockout mechanism stops someone from calling mom..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lockout Only the Driver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lockout Only the Driver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lockout Only the Driver
You can already manually put your phone into Airplane mode and stop all this crap and then not be distracted when driving. If that's a problem for you with no self control and so dumb as to use Facetime of all things while driving a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lockout Only the Driver
We need a pooch lock-out system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Force a major corporation to be the adult in the room.
People will text and drive because 'it'll never happen to me'.
A majority of the legislation to stop this stupidity isn't that useful, & millions poured into ad campaigns people ignore.
The problem isn't the phone, the problem is the self centered people who think they are above the law & will never be one of THOSE people. Slapping on digital lockouts will work as well as DRM does.
Stupid should hurt, and that is the only way people will learn.
Hit someone while texting, be on the hook for the cost to repair their car & medical bills.
Welcome to a limited license for 6 months.
Welcome to paying for classes where they teach you not to text and drive like you are 10.
Oh you did it a second time, we'll just double up everything.
A 3rd time? You are an idiot aren't you.
Suspended license for a year.
The Feds used to hand out enforcement money to make sure people were buckled up & there were enforcement weekends. At this point in the game I'd be all for the callous answer of first responders arrive on the scene & discover 1 car has buckled people and 1 has unbuckled people... buckled people get first dibs to hell with triage. They refused to take a minimal step to protect themselves, why waste time.
Do you think if people knew that not being buckled would mean going to the back of the line for help in an accident they might buckle up? Tickets aren't working, points aren't working. Making it very clear your choices will have detrimental outcomes might get the message across, but probably not because far to often the one that survives the accident is the unbuckled drunk who was limp as they drove on top of the minivan full of kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why is it a proper function of government to force me to wear a seatbelt in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Losing a loved one in an accident can have strange effects on a person's mind. In some cases that can manifest itself in the form of hearing Cha-Ching sounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surprisingly no. It's a stupid lawsuit blaming the wrong people, but it doesn't appear to be a cash-grab.
Julio Ceja, who was rear-ended by a driver allegedly distracted while using her iPhone, isn’t seeking monetary damages (save for legal fees). Instead, Ceja hopes Apple will be forced to halt sales of its iPhones in The Golden State until a lock-out mechanism preventing people from using their smartphones while driving is implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is even more idiotic. Even if this lawsuit was successful, that would neither stop people from using existing phones nor stop them from using the phones of Apple's competitors (which, taken as a whole, sell more phones than Apple). Nor, I presume, stop people buying iPhones in other states. Then, once the measure is introduced, people will still find ways to bypass it, while Apple suddenly become liable for behaviour they neither encourage nor can realistically prevent.
It's actually worse than a cash grab, it's grandstanding on an important issue, but completely attacking the wrong party in return for something that will absolutely not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, I'm sure he'd settle for a nice, big ol' pile of cash if Apple were to offer it. (wink, wink)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bed legislation tends to follow tragedies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybelline gets sues for not providing tech that stops someone from putting on makeup while driving.
Third party liability really is silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few years ago...
America needs this - you lose, typically you pay legal fees. Maybe there would be less frivolous lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Face Facts.
I think the sense of the meeting is that a lot of people here believe that they can use their smart-phones to play video games while driving in traffic. Because they have such superior reflexes that _they_ won't have an accident. Duh... I'm a pedestrian myself, and when I am crossing a street, I make a point of flourishing my cane like a musketeer's sword. Like Monsieur Cyrano De Bergerac, my arm is factually longer by four feet of steel.
I can imagine the automaker designing a signal, perhaps in the infra-red range, which says, in effect, "you are driving a car-- pay full attention," and I can envision Apple being placed under pressure to incorporate a sensor which picks up this signal, so that the smart-phone can act on it.
An automaker can design a built-in radio system, vastly bigger and heavier, and more powerful and efficient than anything which will fit in a pocket device. It can be made much cheaper than a cellphone contract (*), and it can have a Wi-Fi interface for personal devices, as well as a heads-up display for the driver. However, it can also shut things down when they are unsafe. This may include jamming cellphone frequencies within the passenger compartment.
(*) greater use of "millimeter wave" frequencies, eg. 5G or Wi-Fi-"ad," which are abundant enough that no one can buy them all up and raise the price.
A basic principle is that, when rolling, the car has to have a monopoly of the user interface. Things like GPS navigation have to be built into the heads-up display, and likewise, such external communications as may be truly necessary. That does not mean video-phone. The front-seat passenger should, insofar as possible, be functioning as a co-pilot, reinforcing the driver's external alertness. The front-seat passenger's visual acuity should be focuses a couple of hundred feet ahead of the car, so that when he sees trouble developing ahead, he immediately ceases conversing, and starts issuing warnings. If the front-seat passenger is doing something visually involving, like watching a movie or playing a video game, it is too easy for the driver to be sucked into the activity. The front-seat passenger will be obliviously shouting about his orc at just the minute when the driver needs to think about the road. Ordinary computer activities must be confined to the back seat.
You get into your car, start the engine, take out your smart-phone, pull up your Rolodex and the car's App, and paste across an address you want to go to. The address appears on the heads-up display, with a map location. You paste a link from the car's App to your telephone interface, and that automatically establishes call-forwarding, and turns off the ring-tone. Now you put your smart-phone away, and move the gear-shift from Park to Drive, and drive away. Your smart-phone doesn't work until you are back in Park again.
When the automakers set out to really own telecommunications to and from cars, that may be the straw which breaks the back of the mobile telephone companies. There is already apt to be Wi-Fi at home, and in offices and workplaces, and in places of public congregation, such as shopping mall food courts. Cars are the last missing link. Since the telephone companies are the bad guys in terms of net-neutrality, this may have interesting ramifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Face Facts.
What on earth give you THAT sense? Nobody has even hinted at such a thing. Nor is it implied by mocking the idea of suing Apple for not controlling something impossible for them to control.
And what of passengers? I browse the news every morning on my way to work. I'm not driving, but I'm in a moving motor vehicle. Your system MUST let passengers use their phones, but if a passenger can say, "No, I'm just a passenger", then so can the driver.
Solve that and Apple STILL had no control over the crash, because no cars are emitting that signal and Apple has no control over whether they ever will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Face Facts.
Who says? They faced a similar problem when outlawing drinking alcohol while driving. They solved it by outlawing any open alcoholic beverage in the vehicle, no matter if possessed by driver or passenger. The world didn't end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Face Facts.
Nice strawman. Do you have any other parameters of your fictional world that we need to understand before we address your complaints about it?
"If the front-seat passenger is doing something visually involving, like watching a movie or playing a video game, it is too easy for the driver to be sucked into the activity."
Unlike when they're simply sat there talking to them, in which case they magically don't get distracted. Or at least, I don't remember lawsuits trying to get people to force passengers not to talk to the driver.
"pull up your Rolodex"
Which decade are you commenting from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Face Facts.
All right, I accept that you are physically in Spain, and you cannot be the party who tried to run me over in a parking lot in 2006 (and fled the scene of the crime). I managed to leap out of the way, but I came down hard-- on asphalt-- and got hurt a bit, and it was rather painful coming back from that. Let me assure you that there is nothing at all imaginary about asphalt paving. My attitude is very largely formed by observing crazy drivers, who tend to vent their workplace frustrations behind the wheel. About a year ago, I say a five-way fender-bender at about twenty miles per hour, from a standing stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Face Facts.
Unless you can show that people here actually "believe that they can use their smart-phones to play video games while driving in traffic", then yes.
"One of the scarier taxicab rides I had, the driver insisted on watching a basketball game on his IPad"
I hope you reported him to his employers, if not the police, because someone like that really needs to be off the roads. But just because you anecdotally had an idiot drive you somewhere, that doesn't mean that "a lot of people here" agree with him, unless you can show that they have stated that they do.
"All right, I accept that you are physically in Spain, and you cannot be the party who tried to run me over in a parking lot in 2006 (and fled the scene of the crime)."
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Just because I'm currently physically in Spain (actually Gibraltar as I write this), that doesn't mean that I wasn't physically near you 11 years ago. I've visited the US numerous times and have spent at least 6 months there in total during my lifetime. I could have been that guy, as far as you know, unless you operate under the delusion that people never travel anywhere (a strange position to have in a discussion about transportation).
Beyond which, what the hell does your other anecdote have to do with the subject at hand, let alone your strawman of what people here believe?
"My attitude is very largely formed by observing crazy drivers"
Having an anti-idiot driver attitude is perfectly logical as a result. Making stuff up about what other people believe and using bad experiences to support illogical and unworkable solutions is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Face Facts.
This'll just piss off passengers. Who are no way going to act like co-pilots if they're, for example, young teenagers.
Your future view of the motoring worlds is, how can I put this, odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Face Facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Face Facts.
> functioning as a co-pilot, reinforcing the driver's
> external alertness. The front-seat passenger's visual
> acuity should be focused a couple of hundred feet ahead
> of the car
That's baloney. The passenger has no obligation-- legal or otherwise-- to help drive the car. In fact, in many cases, the passenger may be asleep so that he/she can switch places and spell the driver later.
That being the case, there is no justification for mandating the use of technology that would not only block the driver's use of a phone, but would block all the passengers' as well.
And even if they did start making cars with that tech today, there are still hundreds of millions of cars on the road right now without it, so the effect on safety would be non-existent. And to hell with you if you're suggesting forcing me to take my non-equipped car into a dealer to have them install this equipment (at my expense, of course). That just ain't gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just passengers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just passengers
Automobiles kill people, and their regulatory climate reflects this. As long as you have human drivers, it does matter whether the drivers concentrate or not.
=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just passengers
As opposed to whom? Are we presuming everyone using a phone in a car is somehow guilty of something, such that we can contrast them with the innocence of those in their homes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this supposed to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this supposed to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Andrew D. Todd
A) That the jamming device isn't aftermarket, probably made in China
B) That the people making the device have Clue One and aren't amping up the output to make it "more effective" than their competition (I recall stories about radar and laser jammers in the 90's impacting nearby businesses and houses, although it isn't obvious if any of these are valid (properly sourced) and it isn't worth logging in to search for research papers).
I'm too lazy to do the math and I think the difference is minimal, but at freeway speeds the vehicle behind the jammer moves ever so slightly closer in to range
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Andrew D. Todd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]