Saying that someone could be liable under U.S. law is not fraud, even if they're in Canada. Yes, if they decide to move tomorrow to the U.S., they could be sued.

A bigger issue is that you appear to just have publicly accused the company of all sorts of crimes (many of which, you know nothing about - illegal conversion, really?). Are you going to complain that you only get a finger wagging for libel?

Nope. You can bring a suit for anything you want. First, you'll have to serve me with notice. Second, you'll have to get a default judgement (which will be easy, because I'm not going to show up or pay anyone to show up). Third, you'll have to get an enforcement order, since I'm not going to voluntarily pay. Fourth, you'll have to wait for me to visit England to enforce that enforcement order. And Fifth, as soon as I do visit, I get the default judgement reversed and you lose at summary judgement. So, you're out the cost of all of those earlier motions and orders, plus, in England, as the losing party, you'd also have to pay my costs for step 5.

But this has nothing to do with international borders. Say I sue you in Mass. and you're in California. If you don't show up, I can get a default judgement, same as above. And when you do finally visit Mass. and I try to enforce it, you can get the default thrown out and we go to trial.

Actually, the dialogue would go like this:
Rightscorp: "We're suing this guy for copyright infringement."
U.S.: "Okay."
fnj: "You can't extradite him!"
U.S.: "No one asked to. It's a civil suit."
fnj: "No kidnapping either!"
Rightscorp: "Gracious, no. We just want money."
fnj: "Canada will resist any attempts to extradite or kidnap its citizens!!"
U.S.: "... we're going to stand over there now."

In both cases, it is done to harass and threaten the poster, with the explicit statement, "I know where you live" and the implicit statement "and therefore could attack you in person." It is done by people who want to silence others, because they cannot respond to their arguments substantively and have to resort to calling them "clickbait fallacy" posted by "drama queens".

Resources. Sustaining life for long periods of time without the Sun's energy merely requires a good energy storage system - for example, batteries that power a flashlight at night. At some point, you need fresh batteries - or fuel for your reactors, heavy metals for manufacturing, etc.

"Obvious to one skilled in the art of reverse engineering" means obvious to someone who has seen the invention, taken it apart, figured out how it works, etc. And duh, once you've studied something in intimate detail, of course it's going to be obvious. That's irrelevant though - the question for patents is whether the invention was obvious at the time of invention, before anyone got to see what the inventor did.

Good point - that's why we don't have any Android devices on the market.

/posted from my Android tablet

Kickstarter is not a patronage system. If it was, then we'd have Neal Stephenson locked in a dungeon.

Yes, and because they hold copyright in that work, they can charge for copies and prevent others from re-publishing it without paying royalties. If there was no copyright, they'd take that year, self-produce and self-publish, and the next day, everyone would have a copy for free, and they'd have no income from that year of work.
Or, conversely, as I said, they would have only published that work for their patron, who paid them in advance to create it, under a contract where they couldn't publish it anywhere else. Artists gotta eat, man.

Your second sentence is correct, but your first is not. Without patents, the information wouldn't be lost, it would be tied up as trade secrets, forcing every competitor to reinvent the proverbial wheel, rather than simply paying a small royalty to the first inventor and going on to invent the next improvement. Without copyright, art would only be created under patronage systems where the wealthy commission works that they want (since no one would pay artists royalties) with exclusive contracts between the patron and artist preventing the artist from ever making a copy. In addition to restricting the number of works, this would also restrict the number of viewpoints, as only those wealthy patrons' desired works would be created.

Here is the movie on Google Play, and here it is on Amazon streaming. By "not showing this movie anywhere", maybe you meant "not showing this movie anywhere for free"?

But the specific radius of curvature is not functional, since you can have many different design choices there while still having non-sharp corners.

Something like 95% of patent applications are initially rejected. People who claim the USPTO doesn't do their jobs conveniently ignore that fact.

Aside: what the hell is up with that? Linking to a 15 minute YouTube video that, by definition, takes 15 minutes to sit through, rather than a five page article that can be skimmed in two? And the videos don't even use the medium to show graphics or charts - they're generally just some talking head in front of their computer's webcam. Are the pundits of this new generation illiterate, and can't simply write down what they want to say? Or are they assuming that their audience is illiterate?

Actually, one issued the story and then others responded to it, many of them jumping on the same bandwagon. It's like seeing something in the NYTimes, then subsequently the WaPo saying, "The NYTimes reported X. We believe X'."
I mean, hell, if you're going to call that a conspiracy, then you just issued a similar story, so mark it up to 14.

Those are not inconsistent statements. You believe that the number of sockpuppets was less than 100%. GP says that according to wiki, it's greater than 50%. If it turns out anywhere within that range, it's still bad.

Gosh, you're right, these sure are harassing tweets:

I'm sure the FBI will be cracking down on Wu any day now.

No, but they could sue them collectively under a joint and several liability argument, saying "we were damaged by $X... feel free to figure out which of you pays which percentage of that amongst yourselves," based on a theory that by linking to each other in the articles, they were acting in concert. That wouldn't require proving which individual new source is responsible for which damage.