Stew Griffin

Whoever the Attorney's are they are working on a flawed argument. To target specifically Apple they must prove conclusively that every other smartphone maker and phone maker in general whether it's a smartphone or a featurephone or totally dumb phone carries the "Lock-out" feature. Using the argument that Apple filed a patent for such a feature does not mean that they have the technology available to them to provide that patented feature, they merely have a patent for a idea and how in theory it would be implemented. If they filed a patent for a flying car would that mean that they actually have that technology and of course as we have all seen over the years Apple has filed patents and never implemented the feature since filing, similarly this is the same basis that Patent Trolls operate. They have patents for 'ideas' or 'flights of fantasy' and there was never any actual product or device or system implemented but a feature similar enough to be shoehorned into fitting a case for a breach of their patent allows them to file a case in a court against their target(s). Apple have simply chosen to create a patent simply so that they can protect themselves from a patent troll by having a prior registered patent for that feature. Similarly the technology, as others previously have stated, would require a system that identifies from a driver or passenger or whether it is on a public transit system which is something that has not been available. We also have the simple case that the cases in question base their claim on a driver that was using an iPhone, if it was say an Oppo brand phone would they go after Oppo or go after Google because it is running Android or an Android derivative or whether they would again blame Apple because Apple happen to have a patent and then claim that because Apple had filed and was awarded the patent that it prevented users of Android and Windows based devices from implementing such functionality. The question would also be raised that the driver is the one at fault, that Apple is not required under any law of the land, namely the United States, to decide whether someone should or should not use a product that they purchased and wholly own, in the manner that they so wish and that it would be up to Federal or State law to implement a legal remedy which we have seen they have failed dismally to implement with harsh enough penalties and with adequate enforcement for simply speaking on a mobile phone or even using a seatbelt. This will be an interesting case and I look forward to seeing the quagmire the plaintiff's get themselves into