The fear is that they would cross the border (for use in planning, coordinating or perpetrating terrorist acts), like previous Hamas drones had in the past, not that they would be used in the Gaza strip. When a terrorist organization is purchasing those things, they are generally used to commit war crimes, not to document them.

Except that in Israel the electricity isn't crappy and there are a lot of street lights in all but the most rural communities. Driving laws are enforced... although not as strictly as I would have liked.

And although the people do drive like nuts, very aggressive and have a tendency to road-rage, motor vehicle related fatalities are lower than the US

...with some fan art?

It's not like they're saying Asimov actually put pen to paper to write them.

-- Arik

Reading this only makes me appreciate my parents so much more. Thank you for your counter-example. Sheesh do I feel lucky.

I never claimed to be an expert etc. If I'm an expert, it's only in the technical matters covered within the patents. I merely claimed that nothing in the USPTO objections I received was ever relevant to the patents' substance, and that that caused the patents applications and hence the granted patents to be overly broad.

Sure, litigation may limit those patents to the actual inventions within, or may even uncover some prior art, but the fact that litigation would be required for that means the system is broken, you don't need to be an expert for that.

I must disagree about the 'picking of fights', I pay for the thing to be examined, I invariably recieve a useless weak reply that is easily refuted, hence system is broken.

Yes, I'm entitled to the broadest patent protection I can secure, but would expect some actual examination by the USPTO.