I know the next big heist that is going to happen. Tonnes of salt is about to go missing next!

How do I know this, you ask? That is because, I have deciphered the nefarious plans of this master-villain!

He is making a lifetime-supply of maple glazed walnuts!!!

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ellie-krieger/maple-glazed-walnuts-recipe/index.html

Are you an idiot? what you need to worry about now is Iran AND all the countries that do NOT like USA, pulling off this crap themselves. So let us make a couple of lists. How many countries hate Iran? Okay now... how many countries hate USA? Who should be more worried, do tell?

...unless money and greed is involved! Way to go US politicians.

I wouldn't write off their chances if they are doing this in USA. I mean some would have considered protecting the rights of "imaginary children"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996) pretty stupid as well, but this IS America after all.

...They had a schedule for achieving controlled fusion? Do they have a schedule for warp drive as well?

That will in all likelihood be much, much longer than human kind's likely survival odds. So, the answer is never.

First part of your argument WAS what I was saying actually. To do business in a new country, a company has to usually open a new subsidiary and enter incorporation. So in short, the subsidiary has to comply to local laws, while parent company will not need to. The wordings you are choosing make it seem like, Google USA has to comply with laws in China, India, UK, USA etc. all at same time, which is not the case. Google India has to comply with Indian laws, but can ignore the laws and regulations in China, and Google China need not comply with US regulations at all. Different companies even if parent owner is same. Ownership grants the parent control, but the subsidiary still has to comply with local laws (and only local laws). And btw, you forgot the union carbide case I referred to. Dow Chemicals distanced itself from any actions of Union Carbide India. Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide who was in India at time of Bhopal disaster, was arrested and skipped bail, and simply disowned the subsidiary(one wonders if UCIL India was independent entity not owned by UCC USA, what on earth was Warren doing there)... and USA courts/government apparently disagree with your interpretation of Google UK/Google USA example you stated above, and said that UCC USA was not responsible for actions of UCIL India. So there is that. And then again, Indian government actually tried to get Yahoo, Google, Blackberry etc. to allow them to monitor communications. Yahoo USA simply refused on grounds of jurisdiction(Yahoo India had to comply). Basically jurisdiction is something more like an etiquette(come to think of it almost anything international comes down to same, be it laws, treaties, conventions). Most countries try not to overreach and have mutual agreements spoken/unspoken. USA's stance has been that it doesn't gives a crap about such etiquette and tries to claim international jurisdiction wherever it thinks it can get away with it, and keeps quiet where it thinks it will get an ass-kicking and will be forced to eat crow(You don't see it making too much noise in respect to China for example, despite IP violations, currency fixing and human rights violation. RIAA/MPAA have been unable to force US government to take any actual concrete action whatsoever against China regards its lax piracy laws, for example). That is all it boils down to, in the end.

What I pointing out was that your quoted case regards HGS was too murky. You are speculating yourself. HGS does apparently operates in UK regardless, since the case clearly mentions GKS as an associated company, not as a party to the suit. And further, world-over, when companies enter the market of a country they can do so only by incorporating as a new legal entity under the laws of that country. Companies thus operating in several jurisdiction have their different local subsidiaries obeying the laws of the country THEY are operating in. Case in point, Microsoft USA has to obey only USA laws. Microsoft China does NOT has to obey USA laws. This is particularly important since USA laws pertaining to privacy and human rights, may actually be in conflict with Chinese laws. Your understanding of International laws is pretty flawed. And the line in your first point is pure bullshit I am afraid. Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction. But something tells me that Google USA will tell Google India to get lost in such case. So much for that theory. If you want to sue some company, you need not have local presence in that country. You do NOT need to open a local new company. But you cannot sue a local company like Seiyu in Switzerland for example, which has no presence in Switzerland owing to its being a Japan only company. I mean even if the Switzerland gave a ruling against Seiyu in absentia, how will it get enforced? Do they invade Japan to enforce it? Your understanding of how the international law works in such case is seriously flawed, probably due to USA's abuse of the payment system monopoly. USA is able to enforce out-of-jurisdiction rulings simply by abusing its monopoly control of credit card systems, banking systems, .com domain control systems etc. i.e. you may not come under our jurisdiction but we can still get at you by forcing your local bank to freeze your accounts(if they don't want to be blacklisted), by freezing your credit cards, your paypal account(remember the completely illegal freeze of wikileaks' paypal account?) or simply illegally seizing your .com domain name. Outcome of USA case technically has zero bearing on German one, since German courts simply do not recognize the rulings of any other courts. They will simply check if patent claimed is valid under EPO, and rule based on that. You might be shocked to know that USPTO and EPO are different entities and certain patents granted by USPTO are actually invalid under EPO(Check their approach to Software patents and Stem cells etc for example). US court is trying to interfere directly with rulings of German court. In effect what the US judge is saying is, I don't give a crap about what German court decides, I forbid you to do X or we will seize your assets here in USA. Not only is this undiplomatic(i.e. flipping Germans a finger), it is also unethical as well as a clear undue exploitation of Google USA's relationship with Motorola Germany.

And I can quote several copyright cases too to add to yours, where the claimants are American. Well obviously, you do not necessarily have to be a local, to sue, if the other party at least, is local. If local copyright law makes something illegal, you can pretty much go and sue the other person in same jurisdiction. If someone stole your entire book verbatim to make a local TV serial or un-authorised film, you will obviously go to that country and sue the culprits there, no matter what your own citizenship is. So let us take your other case then, where a so-called "US company" is defendant. Based on your first case, HGS is apparently bought over by the British company GSK, which is mentioned in your linked court ruling itself btw. So is HGS trying to enforce its patents in Britain or not? If it is, then why on Earth can it not be sued in English courts, since it has sufficient local presence? If the patent dispute is for USA market, then English ruling will hold no water, since Britain has no way of enforcing these in USA in absence of an actual treaty. I can pretty well try to sue Walmarts in Japan(Seiyu does not counts btw), but I will be laughed out of the court. On the other hand, I can go and sue Starbucks in Japan, which does indeed have local presence. Most of the other countries understand this, and acknowledge and respect this fact.

Negative. No company operates across several jurisdictions directly in the first place. You HAVE to create a legal local entity to do business in a country. Almost any country at that. For example, Microsoft Japan or IBM Japan are completely different local legal entities for all legal purpose. This is done, to make it possible to sue such multi-national entities locally. Microsoft China for example, HAS to follow Chinese laws, even if these are contradicting USA laws. It would not matters what Microsoft China conceded or did did not concede regards its identity. By ruling that a US company(Microsoft here) that apparently initially subjected itself to obeying German laws, can go and neutralize and ignore the rulings of German legal system, the judge directly attacked the sovereignty of Germany. If the dispute was indeed between two US companies, how on earth would they have been allowed to file a lawsuit in Germany instead of their own country? German lawsuit and US lawsuit may be related, but are under two different jurisdictions.

Permit me to introduce you and the said Judges to the concept of International law(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law). You know, the laws which govern the conduct of companies and natural persons in international waters. And you might find that when corporations open subsidiary entities in another nation, the subsidiary always has to agree to obey the laws of the land. They cannot pick and choose and say, that hey we want to obey only US laws, since our owners are US companies. And for all purpose, they actually have to make the subsidiary a separate legal entity. To argue otherwise, will mean that they lied while entering incorporation in the said country. In case of the Union Carbide gas leak incident in Bhopal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Legal_proceedings_leading_to_the_settlement), the very excuse used the said parent US company Dow Chemicals/Union Carbide was that the parent company was a separate entity and as such was not under Indian Jurisdiction. So you can decide up whether these are "more or less same parties" or different ones. Else you are just advocating for opportunistic interpretation of law, on the line of "having one's cake and eating it too".

I don't think you understand.World over, you can sue an entity in a court of your country, only and only if the said entity legally exists in your country, and as such falls under your nation's jurisdiction. You cannot for example, sue the pope in Pakistan. He has no legal presence there, and you have no way of enforcing the verdicts. Sure, you can probably shutdown all the churches and arrest the clergy, based on their association with the Pope, but for all purpose you will be working as the principles of justice, and opening a can of worms. It is only and only USA that seems to think it can enforce its laws everywhere else in the world. What a subsidiary can or cannot do in a country is and should be subject to the courts of THAT country. But here, the moron judge thinks that he can dictate what legal recourse a subsidiary existing as a local entity in another country, has or not has. It does not matters what the parties said. They can only file a case in other countries, if they exist as a local entity there, and for all purpose they would be considered an independent entity no matter who their owner in USA was. If you start dictating what legal options a person/entity in another country has, the other countries will start enforcing their own reciprocal laws, and you will be helpless to even object, without coming out as a hypocrite i.e. persecuted minorities in a country will be forbidden to open a lawsuit in USA(parties are same)... this kind of nonsense leads to breakdown of trade even. So I repeat, the judge is a moron. US courts cannot really dictate what subsidiaries may or may not do in another country. The act of limiting legal freedom in another country, is a violation and challenge to other nation's sovereignty and legal system, and is pretty much illegal itself in first place.

Negative. At bottom it is a private dispute between Microsoft Germany and Google Germany. The fact that these are in turn, owned by US companies is immaterial. If these were really just "US corporations", they could not have filed a case in Germany in the first place. The judge is a moron.

You should wake up and smell the coffee sometime. India has been too controlling of Nepal and in resentment, Nepal has allied itself with China which has begun heavily investing in Nepal. In other words, the "buffer nation"(this was the reason for Nepal and Bhutan not being annexed by India in 40s), is now practically Chinese territory and a buffer no more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Nepal_relations#Economic_and_strategic_relations

You missed the point, I am afraid. But you were not alone. Other folks here arguing that Hitler lost, and you with your focus on WWII analysis too are overlooking the point, that Hitler should have been contained much earlier on, in the first place. USA companies kept supplying it with strategic supplies like oil(the stuff they used for their tanks, you know?) and steel and so on. Romanians were doing the same. And even when Hitler started threatening neighboring countries, USA very conveniently decided to stay "neutral"... till the war was brought to their door finally. It can be pretty much argued that without Standards Oil(Exxon) greedily and generously supplying oil to Germany, there would not HAVE been a World War II in the first place, since Germany would have lacked the fuel for its tanks. And like a true idiot, American companies are doing it all over again. With all of your manufacturing transferred to China, you have already given it the financing for all its future military adventurism, and by transfer of technology as part of said manufacturing(and by allowing Chinese students/employees to steal secrets), you are simply repeating your old mistake again. And if that was not enough, you are failing to contain China's posturing as well towards its immediate neighbors. If India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan etc become Chinese colonies(Like India was a British colony earlier on), it gives China complete dominance of Asia, and their next move will be to neutralize Russia, and then move on to Europe(and a financial take over country-by-country will suffice frankly. They do not NEED to invade. None of the European countries can take on China military-wise so there will not be any military resistance to begin with). And then finally when the most powerful opponent has been isolated from all other allies, it can be simply starved based on trade-bans etc. The only slight hope you have of containing them is NOW.