Your EBN article sounds like a child wrote it .."fishy cases".. are you serious? US gov and Co.s don't practice self serving protectionism? Let me guess, you wrote that article on an Apple product correct? And listen to music, talk and surf on your 3 other Apple products? You're another Delusional Apple Fan Yoyo. One thing i really like about EET and the like is relatively adult articles and little to no winy kiddy "editorial".
Here's a very specific example of what I'm talking about. You say:
"Laws can be tricky in some places, created specifically to benefit the locals. This is not news for anyone, isn’t it?"
What do you think it looked like to the rest of the world, when the jurors in the much-hyped Apple-Samsung lawsuit were told NOT to consider prior art, if the product was never sold in the US?
In short, this is called Karma. A company that sues another for "copying" the great "innovation" of making rectangles with rounded corners, or of using a lower case i to denote Internet application, deserves nothing better.
None of these were Apple innovations. Even if the Apple fan club thinks that high tech started with, and goes no further than, their Apple iToys.
If other companies behave the same way, trying to make a buck using the bully's own tactics, why should anyone cry about it? Honestly.
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.