You made a nice update to this after Patexia responded to your criticism (from the response, it seems to me that Patexia really are trying, it also turned out that Freescale is involved because the example patent they are trying to invalidate is Freescale's!). Perhaps you could add a link in a salient location to your new article with the response from Patexia!
It's worrying how easy it is to find prior art to invalidate patents which have been granted, especially in the EU. It shows what a poor job the USPTO is doing. You don't need 500$ an hour lawyer to find prior art - any competent engineer can do it. It's a pity the USPTO doesn't encourage submissions from the public concerning prior art - applicants competitors are willing to do the examiner's work for free.
Not surprising; coming from a company that has been announcing products (such as the K60) well before the tools were ready and the silicon worked. They have forgotten (unless you are an automotive company)as to who their customers are. There is nothing "free" about Freescale.
What's even funnier is that the original assignee was Motorola. Did Freescale forget to license this one when the were spun off lo those many years ago? And now the owner (Google? Motorola Solutions?) is pressing them for a fee? Sure smells like it.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.