Should I respond to your straw man with an ad hominem? Nah, let's not bother tonight, eh?

Cheers for that. Seems fair enough really. Whether the US courts will follow suit...

Er, no they're not.

Read the patent claim: 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

You can't just repeat the same old nonsense and hope that no-one notices. It's not even specific to voice control, although does appear to be related to their implementation of Siri.

Well, if you read the patent that I'd linked to below, you'd realise that isn't the case. I'm now certain that this is the patent under discussion - how on earth the FTA concluded it was patenting voice commands, I'll never know.

Except that's not what they're claiming. And if you'd bothered to read some portion of this thread (or God forbid, the patents that you're commenting on) you'd know that.
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS? Now that may be a valid and probably interesting comment. I'm not saying they're not, but your post contains nothing to validate your assertion.

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...