Orly? Surely the point of posting an article is to create discussion?
How do comments like "Bullshit. These are junk patents." and "Apple is a scummy company" promote discussion? Without analysis, reasoning, justification or citation, comments like this merely stoke the inevitable flamewar.

No offence intended, but did you submit this article just so that you could post flamebait like this?

It's a really poor article, with very little information in it. There are many more articles on the same subject available on the 'net - I've linked to some in my other comments.

It's an interesting subject, but your submission is pedestrian at best and your comment here is pretty worthless and adds nothing to any sort of debate or analysis that could occur on the subject.

I'm replying out of courtesy, but I don't really understand your response. In honesty, I probably don't understand the patent either - it's very complex and talks about (amongst other things) a method for determining the context and intent of a user's search query.

"So what?" was your opener. My reply is that you've dismissed the patent's validity without understanding it. When it's been pointed out to you that the patent doesn't relate to what you were led to believe it did, you've dismissed the patent again, with no indication that you fully understand the patent application. I'd assert that, like me, you don't understand the patent and should probably be a little less dismissive.

Like I posted above, I don't think it's that simple. The summary and article don't give any sort of detail to draw the conclusions that you appear to be making. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604 [uspto.gov]

I'm not having a pop, because the linked article is poor and the summary worse, but it's not that simple. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604

Are you sure that it was this patent that was ruled invalid? The patent that you've linked to seems to describe the use of a visual metaphor to implement the slide-to-unlock feature (like this one: http://css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/slidetounlock.png). The Neonode is similar, but doesn't have that - see this video review from 4 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/apple-launching-sidelong-attacks-against-google-with-new-lawsuits-in-us.ars

Including a breakdown on FOSS Patents blog:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apple-requests-us-preliminary.html

I'm unsure as to whether you're being deliberately obtuse. Your argument appears to be that Samsung could clone every detail of an Apple device, but as long as they put the word SAMSUNG in bold on the front of the device..? Seriously?

IANAL, but I did read the Judge's summary. His interpretation of the law differs from yours. Don't know how much training you've had in UK law, but for now I'm going to assume that he has a better grasp than you. No offence intended.

Read the article. Read the full judgement that is linked in the article. Pay specific attention to the part when the Judge sums up his findings on Independent Creation and the fact that the defendants dropped any claim that their image was designed independently.
Jesus, for a guy who doesn't care what I think, you seem a little wound up...

You didn't read TFA, did you? The Judge was able to determine that the image was clearly copied from that particular photograph precisely because that particular photograph was being used by the defendant without permission until a court ordered him to pay licensing fees. Only then was the new photograph was created.
Group think on Slashdot is reaching new levels of stupidity. This isn't a case of artistic freedom, this is about using someone else's art to sell tea and refusing to recognise their efforts.

That's clearly a ridiculous thing to post. The fact that this story prompted your response saddens me. The fact that others have modded you up angers me.

This is not a first amendment issue. Someone used public equipment to broadcast a cowardly and hateful message and you think this is a question of protecting free speech?

Really? Apple's fault? I know that Apple bashing is usually worth a few mod points on Slashdot, but do you think you may be over-reaching this time?

Get yourself down the gym lad. Within a couple of months you'll be wearing t-shirts and wanting people to stare at your improved physique, trying to decipher the nerd-text on your chest. You can achieve your ideal you!

I just don't have the skills/knowledge/patience to check the source code of my mobile phone's OS. So I'll be relying on a third party in any event.
Trust no one, right? Damn, now I need to dump my phone...