Maybe not "just an IP address," which is why content owners subpoena ISP records to show that the IP address was assigned to a particular person's account and modem/router. And I disagree with your reading of the GP's post. His post must be taken in context with the original question - which presupposes that infringement has occurred and is traceable to the OP's home.

I really think you should refrain from giving out legal advice. Someone is going to follow it and be ruined as a result.

If they have evidence that their products were shared illegally using a connection with your name on it, none of your breathless characterizations is accurate. Being "100% legally in the clear" does not innoculate you from being legitimately sued. It is only a determination that is made after the suit has been brought. Your argument is like saying that every criminal defendant found not-guilty was maliciously prosecuted.

If your application was rejected under 35 USC 102(b), which is a statutory bar, you cannot swear behind (backdate) the invention to overcome the prior art. This situation applied when the prior art reference was published more than one year before filing of the application it was being used against.

If your application was rejected under 35 USC 102(a), you would only, at most, need to backdate the application by a year, since if the reference were older than that it would have been applied under 102(b), and thus a statutory bar.

If your application was rejected under 35 USC 102(e), you could backdate as far as necessary. This is the situation where the application was rejected based on another patent or patent publication, which could have priority going back years.

In practice, however, swearing behind prior art references is difficult to do and requires a lot of evidence to be effective. It is rarely done.

And no matter what you may have been told, patent examiners do not just "rubber stamp" applications.

There is still prior art. This removes the ability for patent applicants to get around prior art by "swearing behind" the references, which actually means more prior art is applicable.

we know that children learn languages very fast during a 'critical period' of childhood.

No, we don't know that. Children actually learn language fairly slowly, when you think about it. Most children raised in environments that are saturated with well-spoken english still take 6-7 years before they speak without making many grammatical errors in the course of a conversation.

An adult with some talent at languages, lots of free time, and access to native speakers ought to be able to speak like a reasonably well-educated adult within 2-3 years.

The difference is that children learn language without consciously endeavoring on a learning program. Adults somehow think that an hour course three times a week for two years ought to be the equivalent of 6-7 years of a child practicing and being corrected in his language development on a near constant basis.