Antigua Files for Remedies- $3.4 billion per year in intellectual prop

[Jay Cohen]

I'll have more on this later.

Good morning United States. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8PSFGFO2.htm

The United States should face commercial sanctions worth more than US$3.4 billion (euro2.5 billion) each year for its failure to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling that its Internet gambling restrictions are illegal, the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda said Wednesday.

Antigua, which won a WTO ruling last year against the U.S. restrictions, is asking the trade body for authorization to target American trademarks and copyrights if the U.S. refuses to change its legislation.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll have more on this later.

Good morning United States. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8PSFGFO2.htm

The United States should face commercial sanctions worth more than US$3.4 billion (euro2.5 billion) each year for its failure to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling that its Internet gambling restrictions are illegal, the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda said Wednesday.

Antigua, which won a WTO ruling last year against the U.S. restrictions, is asking the trade body for authorization to target American trademarks and copyrights if the U.S. refuses to change its legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent news, Jay! This plus the EU news makes for good stuff for us.

I think we're in far better shape now for this than we were just six months ago. As you know, the U.S. has something of a history of thumbing its nose at NGOs like the WTO and the UN (to whom we went a decade without paying dues). In fact, conservative politicians actually run against the UN. However, with the wildly successful IGREA hearings that exposed the fact that our opponents simply don't like gambling, combined with our ongoing lobbying efforts (plus the virtual disintegration of the Republican Party), we now have a changed landscape. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Many of the people who forced the ban on us are gone, and the remaining ones are out of power in Congress. Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, is a big-time free trader who must hate UIGEA as much as we do (for different reasons, though equally principled).

Everyone, please write and call Congress, newspapers, and large companies of which you own stock. Express concern and alarm. Let's still back all the bills that are in Congress...after all, that's how we got where we are today (i.e., positioned to fight back).

P.S., before Antigua signs off on this, they should insist on a presidential pardon for our friend Jay.

[Legislurker]

When can we expect to see some detailed analysis come out of what to expect? I guess the lynchpin of any hopes we have of returning to making a good living hinge on whether or not compensation for other trading partners is proportional, i.e. does EU compensation get multiplied by the size of its economy, or size of its remote gaming sector, or is "harm" going to be hammered out by a neutral arbitration panel?

And Engineer(should I call you The Engineer), can we slip into this week's action plan contacting newspapers, radio call in shows, and magazines? I think if instead of calling or writing Congress this week, we pick a radio talk show and call in trying to get some play on this. If we can get people to think of this issue in terms of pandering to the religous right is costing the US economy 10-11 figures a year, we could see more political pressure come to bear. Im trying to call into Washington Journal this morning on CSPAN, and I'll do Talk of the Nation this afternoon. I am writing my local paper and The National Review when I get enough information and some more lengthy news stories to reference my letters to.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
And Engineer(should I call you The Engineer), can we slip into this week's action plan contacting newspapers, radio call in shows, and magazines? I think if instead of calling or writing Congress this week, we pick a radio talk show and call in trying to get some play on this. If we can get people to think of this issue in terms of pandering to the religous right is costing the US economy 10-11 figures a year, we could see more political pressure come to bear. Im trying to call into Washington Journal this morning on CSPAN, and I'll do Talk of the Nation this afternoon. I am writing my local paper and The National Review when I get enough information and some more lengthy news stories to reference my letters to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either "Engineer" or "TheEngineer" is fine, of course.

We already have an action item to contact newspapers and other media, so we're probably okay for now. You're correct that we'll likely wish to update the actions to reflect these trade issues. I'll wait for a few replies to these threads and will use that data to develop the updated plan. After all, I don't make these up, then give marching orders. Rather, we make the plan as a team and I post them as the group plan (I ask for input, use polls, and otherwise glean direction from the posts here).

I'm calling my congressman and both senators today. I may call Paulson as well (I tried yesterday). I hope everyone here will as well.

[TheEngineer]

Updated article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/gamble.php

[TheEngineer]

I just called my congressman and both senators. I live in a horse-friendly state with a substantial aerospace and agriculture presence, so these guys care about the Interstate Horse Racing Act as well as potential EU sanctions. I don't know if they'll come around, but at least I was able to direct the conversations toward things they care about.

While they have no desire to take orders from the WTO, they do want to make sure the WTO is strong enough to give orders to others.

[Jay Cohen]

Actual filing:

UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES (WT/DS285)

Recourse by Antigua and Barbuda to Article 22.2 of the DSU

Antigua and Barbuda requests that the following item be included in the agenda of the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of the World Trade Organisation (the “WTO”) to be held on 24 July 2007:

“United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services” (WT/DS285)

Recourse to Article 22.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by Antigua and Barbuda

Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the WTO’s Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Antigua and Barbuda requests authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua and Barbuda under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS”).

Antigua and Barbuda’s aim through this suspension is the effective withdrawal of concessions and other obligations so as to match the level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Antigua and Barbuda, amounting to an annual value of US $3.443 billion, as a result of the United State’s failure, as of 3 April 2006, to bring its measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services into compliance with the GATS or to otherwise comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in United States– Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (“DS285").

Antigua and Barbuda has held discussions with the United States with a view towards agreement on compensation, but to date these discussions have not resulted in any agreement. Antigua and Barbuda remains hopeful that further discussions may result in resolution of this issue, and if so it will inform the DSB as soon as practicable.

Background

On 21 July 2003, the DSB established a panel at the request of Antigua and Barbuda. Both the panel and the Appellate Body in DS285 found certain measures of the United States to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATS. On 7 April 2005, the DSB adopted the report of the panel, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body. The resulting DSB recommendations and rulings include, inter alia, the recommendation that the United States bring the measures found to be inconsistent with the GATS into conformity with its obligations under that agreement. (WT/DS285/AB/R, para. 374). A WTO appointed arbitrator subsequently determined that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would expire on 3 April 2006.

The compliance period expired on 3 April 2006 without action being taken by the United States to bring its measures into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in DS285. On 10 April 2006 the United States submitted a status report to the DSB regarding implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings in which the United States informed the DSB that, in its opinion, it was in compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings. At a meeting of the DSB on 21 April 2006, the United States informed the Members that the United States was in compliance with the DSB Rulings. At the same meeting, Antigua expressed its disagreement with the United States' assertion of compliance.

On 23 May 2006, Antigua and the United States concluded “Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding Applicable to the WTO Dispute United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (WT/DS285)” (the “Agreed Procedures”). In conformity with the Agreed Procedures, on 8 June 2006 Antigua made recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by requesting consultations with the United States. Subsequent consultations were held in Washington, D.C., but did not result in a settlement of the dispute. As there was clearly a dispute between the parties “as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings” of the DSB in the original proceeding, on 6 July 2006 Antigua submitted a request for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, and at its meeting of 19 July 2006 the DSB agreed to form the panel.

On 30 March 2007, the panel issued its report, in which it concluded that the United States remained out of compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter.

Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU and paragraph 7 of the Agreed Procedures, Antigua and Barbuda hereby requests authorization from the DSB, at the next meeting of the DSB to be held following the provision of this notice, to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations under the TRIPS and the GATS in an annual amount of US $3.443 billion.

Antigua and Barbuda Recourse to Articles 22.3(b) and (c) of the DSU

In considering what concessions and obligations to suspend, Antigua and Barbuda applied the principles and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU, and makes this request pursuant to Articles 22.3(b) and (c). Antigua and Barbuda is a developing country with a population of approximately 80,000. With a combined landmass of only 442 square kilometres, Antigua and Barbuda is by far the smallest WTO member to have made a request for the suspension of concessions under Article 22 of the DSU and realises the difficulty of providing effective counter measures against the world’s dominant economy. The natural resources of Antigua and Barbuda are negligible and as a result not only are the country’s exports limited (approximately US $4.4 million annually to the United States) but Antigua and Barbuda is required to import a substantial amount of the goods and services needed and used by the people of the country. On an annual basis, approximately 48.9 percent of these imported goods and services come from single source providers located in the United States. The imposition of additional import duties on products imported from the United States or restrictions imposed on the provision of services from the United States by Antigua and Barbuda will have a disproportionate adverse impact on Antigua and Barbuda by making these products and services materially more expensive to the citizens of the country. Given the vast difference between the economies of the United States and Antigua and Barbuda, additional duties or restrictions on imports of goods and services from the United States would have a much greater negative impact on Antigua and Barbuda than it would on the United States. In fact, ceasing all trade whatsoever with the United States (approximately US $180 million annually, or less than 0.02 percent of all exports from the United States) would have virtually no impact on the economy of the United States, which could easily shift such a relatively small volume of trade elsewhere.

Antigua and Barbuda further considers that the circumstances are serious enough to justify the suspension of concessions or obligations under other covered agreements in addition to the GATS. As a result of Antigua and Barbuda’s lack of natural resources, the bulk of the economy is dependent upon tourism and the provision of banking and other financial services. Antigua and Barbuda, initially with the cooperation of the United States government, looked to the provision of gambling and betting services as a way to diversify its economy and create the growth needed to assist the country in moving from a developing to a more advanced status. Prior to the actions taken by the United States to prevent the provision of gambling and betting services from Antigua and Barbuda to consumers in the United States, it is estimated that the gambling and betting services sector accounted for more than ten percent of the gross domestic product of Antigua and Barbuda and was the fastest growing segment of the economy. Recent efforts by the United States government to further prohibit and impede the provision of these services to consumers in the United States have greatly harmed the Antiguan service providers, while domestic providers in the United States continue to prosper in the absence of prohibition and criminal prosecution. Under the circumstances, the United States’ prohibition of these services and its non-compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in DS285 forces Antigua and Barbuda to proceed in the manner requested despite the difference in level of development with the United States, the large disparity in their trade relations and despite the harsh economic reality affecting Antigua and Barbuda which affects its ability to exercise its rights under Article 22.

In addition to the reasons described above, the suspension of concessions and other obligations corresponding to a value of US $3.443 billion and wholly applied to the importation of services from the United States is neither practicable nor effective for various reasons. First, Antigua and Barbuda made no commitments under the sector at issue in DS285, GATS Sector 10.D., “Sporting and Other Recreational Services,” in its Schedule of Specific Commitments under the GATS (GATS/SC/2) (the “Antigua Schedule”). Second, with respect to most of the other services covered by the Antigua Schedule, as noted above suspension of concessions in the form of higher duties, tariffs, fees or other restrictions would have a disproportionate impact on the economy of Antigua and Barbuda and little or no impact on the United States. Third, even if Antigua and Barbuda were to rely exclusively on a suspension of concessions under the GATS, Antigua and Barbuda would clearly not be able to recover the full amount of nullification and impairment caused by the inconsistent measures.

Additionally, in Antigua and Barbuda’s view, the United State’s continued non-compliance renders the circumstances serious enough, within the meaning of Article 22.3(c) of the DSU, to justify the imposition of appropriate countermeasures under other covered agreements, given that Antigua and Barbuda’s gaming industry will continue to suffer serious losses, the government of Antigua and Barbuda will be deprived of critical revenue, the people of Antigua and Barbuda will be enjoined from participating in much needed employment and the overall economy of the nation will continue to suffer adverse effects for such time as the United States does not withdraw the measures at issue in DS285 or remove their adverse effects.

Summary of Countermeasures

Because the withdrawal of concessions solely under the GATS is at present not practicable or effective, and the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify Antigua and Barbuda exercising its rights under Article 22, Antigua and Barbuda requests authorization to suspend concessions and other obligations under the TRIPS.

For the reasons given above, Antigua and Barbuda intends to take countermeasures in the form of suspension of concessions and obligations under the following sections of Part II of the TRIPS:

Section 1: Copyright and related rights
Section 2: Trademarks
Section 3: Industrial designs
Section 5: Patents
Section 7: Protection of undisclosed information

Suspension of Concessions Under the GATS

Antigua and Barbuda may also suspend horizontal and/or sectoral concessions and obligations for the following sector contained in the Antigua Schedule:

2. Communication Services

Until such time as the United States brings its measures into compliance with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in DS285, every year Antigua and Barbuda will notify the DSB of the amount and the form of the suspension of concessions if proposed to be different in any respect from the preceding fiscal year, as applicable.

Compliance with Article 22.4

As required by Article 22.4 of the DSU, the level of suspension of the above concessions or other obligations proposed above by Antigua and Barbuda is lower or equivalent on an annual basis to the nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Antigua and Barbuda resulting from the United States’ failure to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in DS285.

[oldbookguy]

WOW! And this is only Antigua's amount requested.
Imagine how much the E.U. will be asking for in addition.
This could reach what, 10 billion per year you think?

obg

[YoureToast]

Engineer/Jay,

Has there been any effort to push our position to the primary 2008 Presidential candidates? Especially for those candidates that haven't stated there position, wouldn't it be useful for them to hear our position before they have to discuss it in any capacity? I'll bet a guy like Guilianni hasn't even thought about the issue or hasn't solidified his thoughts and if it were possible to get the issue in front of him from our perspective now, so he wouldn't have to change his mind later (which I believe he has shown his is disinclined to do), we'd be in better shape. I know this may be thinking too far ahead in some respects, but we may not get what we want before then and if he's asked in any sort of public forum, gives the wrong answer and then gets elected, and if nothing had happened before that to change the legislation, it will be much more difficult to get changes to take place.

Thoughts?

PS. By the way, I (and I assume there are many more of us) who REALLY appreciate the work the 2 of you are doing. Thanks.

[BluffTHIS!]

Jay,

Assuming this request gets on the current agenda, and that it receives approval, is there the usual multiple rounds of appeals of that remedy similar to the original dispute? A key part of the US strategy has always been to delay, so I am just wondering how much further they can drag this out.

[Jay Cohen]

Antigua's Press Release:

ANTIGUA SEEKS APPROVAL FOR TRADE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN GAMBLING CASE


ST. JOHNS, Antigua. The government of Antigua and Barbuda today announced that it has moved under Article 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade Organisation to seek the imposition of trade sanctions against the United States for having failed to comply with a WTO ruling in favour of Antigua on the subject of cross-border gambling and betting services. In the filing made today, Antigua has informed the WTO of its intention to seek concessions with an annual value of US $3.443 billion, primarily through the suspension of Antigua’s obligations in respect of copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs and patents under the WTO’s intellectual property rights or “TRIPS” agreement. This action, once approved by the WTO, could have significant implications for American intellectual property rights and represents a material escalation in the stakes at play in the gambling case.

Dr L. Errol Cort, Antigua’s Minister of Finance and the Economy, expressed his government’s resolve, stating “While we realise this is a significant step for Antigua and Barbuda to take, we feel we have no other choice in the matter. We have fought long and hard for fair access to the United States market and have won at every stage of the WTO process. Until such time as the United States is willing to work with us on achieving a reasonable solution to this trade dispute, we will continue to use every legitimate remedy available to protect the interests of our citizens.”

Antigua has expressed its frustration on many occasions over the failure of the United States to engage with Antigua over a mutually agreeable bilateral resolution of the dispute, and instead maintaining an uncompromising posture despite repeated success by Antigua in the WTO dispute resolution system. In the most recent, 30 March 2007 WTO report on the case, the reviewing panel observed that the United States maintains an extensive domestic remote gaming industry while prohibiting foreign service providers access to the markets. The report also clarified that United States laws as written and applied sanction many domestic remote gambling opportunities, none of which are available to Antiguan service providers.

“Despite having been dressed up by the United States as a moral issue,” said Dr Cort, “All along this has simply been a trade issue. This industry has been and can be regulated. We are willing to work with the United States government to ensure that its legitimate interests are protected. But unfortunately, there appear to be powerful interests in the United States that want to protect the domestic industry from competition. That is not only unfair and wrong, but contrary to the letter and spirit of the WTO agreements.”

The sanctions requested by Antigua will come into effect shortly, unless the United States refers the issue to arbitration, in which event a panel of WTO arbitrators will decide on the final level and scope of the sanctions that may be imposed by Antigua. The recent, unprecedented announcement by the United States that it was acting to withdraw its commitments in respect of gambling and betting services has not altered Antigua’s strategy. “We remain entitled to the benefits of our victory in the WTO,” said Mark Mendel, Antigua’s lead counsel in the case. “Whether the United States is able to withdraw its commitment with respect to other countries is one thing, but Antigua has its victory and the United States is obligated to comply with it. With Antigua poised to impose massive sanctions against substantial United States business interests with absolutely no connection to gambling, it certainly seems time for the United States to come to grips with this case and work out a settlement. But if we can’t convince the United States to sit at the bargaining table with Antigua, maybe some of the adversely affected American business interests will be able to do so.”

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

Assuming this request gets on the current agenda, and that it receives approval, is there the usual multiple rounds of appeals of that remedy similar to the original dispute? A key part of the US strategy has always been to delay, so I am just wondering how much further they can drag this out.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there are no appeals in this round.

I assume the US will contest Antigua's claim and a panel will be seated in 60 days or less. I think once the panel is seated it will take 60 to 90 days. No appeals.

I'll have a better schedule for you very soon.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Has there been any effort to push our position to the primary 2008 Presidential candidates? Especially for those candidates that haven't stated there position, wouldn't it be useful for them to hear our position before they have to discuss it in any capacity? I'll bet a guy like Guilianni hasn't even thought about the issue or hasn't solidified his thoughts and if it were possible to get the issue in front of him from our perspective now, so he wouldn't have to change his mind later (which I believe he has shown his is disinclined to do), we'd be in better shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't done a lot in this area. I sent Giuliani an email asking for his position last month, but I received no reply. Maybe now that several New York have cosponsored IGREA, he may have an opinion. I do think there's an opportunity there, perhaps.

Ron Paul is actively working for our right to play, as I imagine we all know. I don't know about Fred Thompson's position. As for the other candidates, as far as I can tell they're actively against us (especially Brownback).

[metsandfinsfan]

US will lose. this will be interesting

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
US already lost. this will be very interesting

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gildwulf]

This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what would happen if the American people simply sat back and refused to do anything. However, that's not the case. There are several bills in Congress to modify UIGEA, and we're getting attention. This is one more tool for us. Also, the social conservatives who were forced this on us don't have nearly the power they had last year.

As I mentioned before, I don't see the finish line. We have a long way to go. This is simply one more step toward us achieving our goal.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this wasnt from a "green" poster, Id think it just trolling to provoke a response.

I would like to see an example of where the US has "ignored" WTO rulings in the past. I could cite plenty of examples of the US using the WTO to get rulings against other countries (we just started another one with China, for example).

The US can ignore the ruling only to the extent that it refuses to change its discriminatory laws on internet gambling and chooses to accept the consequences and pay the compensation - thats possible.

But what the US cannot do is refuse to change our laws AND not pay the compensation. That would violate the treaty so openly as to remove any last bit of US credibility in the world left after the Bush administration.

Once the US decides to violate the treaty, so will everyone else. The US as a whole benefits far more from the WTO than is realized by this post.

So what is the US going to do when Antigua starts selling unlicensed movies and software? Invade Antigua? Well we could, of course, but that would be the end of the WTO as we know it. So then China resumes selling pirated movies and software. Think there is any chance of the US succesfully invading and occupying China?

This ruling does not guarantee a victory for poker players, but the idea that the US can INDEFINITELY ignore this ruling is the real "dead end."

Skallagrim

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
Updated article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/gamble.php

[/ QUOTE ]

can someone elaborate on this segment?

"After losing the case at the WTO, Washington announced that it would take the unprecedented legal step of changing the international commitments it made as part of a 1994 treaty regulating trade in services among the 150 members of the WTO. As a result, Washington declined to challenge the WTO ruling, because it says that its legal maneuver effectively ends the case."

what commitments were changed?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Updated article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/gamble.php

[/ QUOTE ]

can someone elaborate on this segment?

"After losing the case at the WTO, Washington announced that it would take the unprecedented legal step of changing the international commitments it made as part of a 1994 treaty regulating trade in services among the 150 members of the WTO. As a result, Washington declined to challenge the WTO ruling, because it says that its legal maneuver effectively ends the case."

what commitments were changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. claimed it was all a typo, and that we never intended to have our gaming sector as part of GATS. Our "solution" was to withdraw from the gaming sector of GATS, then claim the issue was solved.

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what would happen if the American people simply sat back and refused to do anything. However, that's not the case. There are several bills in Congress to modify UIGEA, and we're getting attention. This is one more tool for us. Also, the social conservatives who were forced this on us don't have nearly the power they had last year.

As I mentioned before, I don't see the finish line. We have a long way to go. This is simply one more step toward us achieving our goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, that will be an interesting US lobbying group.

Lobbyist: we really want you to support the WTO decision to pay $3.4 billion to Antigua on a clause about gambling.

US Congressman: but that will take billions away from my constituents and is money that could be spent on healthcare and education. Not to mention 10s of billions of dollars in potential lawsuits that it opens up if the US agrees to pay.

Lobbyist: yea but if we do this people will be able to gamble on the internet.

Congressman: ...

[TheEngineer]

???????????

The U.S. doesn't have to support the WTO decision for it to take effect. The WTO isn't sending us a bill. Antigua plans to take the money by violating our intellectual property rights (i.e, they can pirate movies, software, etc.). I guess you didn't read any of the posts before stopping by to tell us how misguided you think we are.

Are you trying to get us to give up?!?!

[Gildwulf]

Re: examples of where US has ignored WTO in the past

In 2003, the US had sanctions of $150 million against it by the WTO Appelate body by a handful of small countries. The claims were about an illegal anti-dumping law (the Byrd Amendment) which is valid in the US. Similar situation.

link (http://www.international.gc.ca/tna-nac/disp/byrd-main-en.asp)

The US has ignored it basically and has been appealing up the wazoo.

Other similar cases were on steel, cotton and tax breaks given to US exporters which result in sanctions of billions of dollars. AFAIK lawmakers in the US basically ignored all of this. Anything that requires an amendment to US laws based on international law has probably close to zero chance of passing.

You should focus your energies on other options. This is a dead end. The U.S. will leave the WTO before it has to pay billions in sanctions.

[Russ Fox]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see an example of where the US has "ignored" WTO rulings in the past. I could cite plenty of examples of the US using the WTO to get rulings against other countries (we just started another one with China, for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

In my field, tax, there's a long-playing example that was finally resolved a couple of years ago. The United States used to have targeted tax breaks helping businesses that exported. The Common Market (yes, this dates back that many years ago) complained, and there were battles over this. Indeed, I think this dates back to the mid-1970s (before I was in college), but I'm unsure of just how old this issue was. But I digress....

In any case, when GATT and the WTO came about, there was an annual ritual: The WTO would rule that the tax scheme passed by Congress was invalid. Congress would pass a new tax scheme that was just as invalid (and, Congress knew that it was invalid; this was discussed on the record at the time). The European Union would complain, file a WTO action, and the following year the WTO would rule against the US. After several years of repeating this cycle, Congress passed the Section 199 Production Activities Deduction (which is the law today).

When I read some of the posts on this issue (and other similar issues), there's a dose of un-reality. When the first WTO complaint was won by Antigua, the U.S. appealed on moral grounds. The WTO upheld the right of the US to ban all online gambling on these grounds. (The US, though, allowed online horserace betting, thus, in the end, losing the case.)

There is no way that Congress--Democrat or Republican--is going to cede an issue (gambling) to the WTO or any other organization that is considered a morals issue rightly to be decided by Congress. Indeed, if the WTO told that to Congress, the vote to withdraw from GATT/WTO would be close to unanimous in Congress.

I agree completely with Gidwulf that the US will leave GATT/WTO before it pays a penny in sanctions.

-- Russ Fox

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
The US has ignored it basically and has been appealing up the wazoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. has been appealing this up the wazoo as well and keeps losing. It is time to pay the piper now, it's appeals are up.


[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. will leave the WTO before it has to pay billions in sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

By leaving the WTO, it will pay billions in sanctions indirectly, the U.S. needs the WTO

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a dead end. The U.S. will leave the WTO before it has to pay billions in sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the U.S. doesn't have to PAY, in terms of getting a bill.

[ QUOTE ]
You should focus your energies on other options.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that an order? Quite authoritarian, considering we've not seen you much on this forum and considering you don't seem to have researched this much.

[Gregatron]

While I do believe that people have a tendency to believe what they want to, and perhaps we are seeing the world through rose colored glasses, I'm just not *getting* your argument GW. I certainly don't see the Bush Administration LEAVING the WTO over this, and certainly not their (hopefully) more sane replacement. We have been central in supporting the WTO over the years. We are not leaving over something like this, and certainly not over a measly few billion dollars.

That said, these clowns in executive branch live their own world, so maybe they are just that crazy. More likely, they hem and haw until they leave office.

[Jay Cohen]

The FSC tax issue and the Byrd amendment were ulltimately resolved, but only after Congress was looking down the sanctions barrel. And it did take some time.

In the FSC tax issue with the EU, the WTO awarded about $18 billion in sanctions against unrelated industries. It was only when these unrelated industries found out there were going to be tariffs on their exports that they started calling their Congressmen and Congress took action.

For example, (I don't know if apple growers were targeted, but ;et's say they were.), Farmer John calls uphis Congressman and said I don't know what a FSC tax is, but you better fix this because it's about to have an impact here on your constituents.

You get the idea. IP interests don't want this to happen just as much for precedent as anything else.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way that Congress--Democrat or Republican--is going to cede an issue (gambling) to the WTO or any other organization that is considered a morals issue rightly to be decided by Congress. Indeed, if the WTO told that to Congress, the vote to withdraw from GATT/WTO would be close to unanimous in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. We won't give up our sovereignty. The WTO cannot "force" us to to this. Rather, this is a tool we can use to our advantage, so we should use it.

[Robin Foolz]

say antigua gets what it wants. will 3 billion worth of pirated stuff hurt usa businesses--such as the music and movie industry--enough that they will get on the horn with the government to work on a resolution? i sure hope so.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
say antigua gets what it wants. will 3 billion worth of pirated stuff hurt usa businesses--such as the music and movie industry--enough that they will get on the horn with the government to work on a resolution? i sure hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]

They value their IP rights greatly....it goes well beyond the dollar amounts. These guys will be quite angry over it if it happens.

[Uglyowl]

As a matter of fact today Paulson has warned Congress about economic isolationism and it's negative effects as we try and solve the problem with the Chineese and it's valuation of it's currency.

This isn't a one way street where the U.S. can just close it's borders and block everyone out.

Further we need the help of other nations (through various international bodies) to help back us in our (multiple) fights against China at the moment.

[Jay Cohen]

Like I have said before, there is a middle ground here if the US would just come to the table in good faith. All concerns could be addressed and this matter could be settled to ALMOST everyone's satisfaction.

Part of the problem has been throughout this process, the USTR's office has not been doing their job. Once the US loses a case, the USTR is supposed to advocate for the WTO's position with Congress. Instead they have acted like just another political wing of the administration.

Hopefully some phones will start ringing next week when this news trickles down to the affected parties.

[boondoggle]

Russ,

What you and gildwulf fail to understand is this is not about having the US pay money directly. Antiqua is asking for copyright/trademark suspension. This is very different.

The ramifications are not just a simple "ignore and this will go away". Instead this will cost US businesses a large amount of money. One fine example is allofmp3.com. This company sells mp3s for 10cents a song vs a buck for same song at itunes. Antiqua sets up a "mp3 farm" with the WTO's blessing and visa/mastercard will be right there as well. Visa/Mastercard pulled out of allofmp3.com due to pressure from other countries. However with Antiqua having WTO support, visa/mastercard can justify their presence.

Another example is "movies". Pay to download Movies for 1 buck. How many businesses would this hurt? How about purchasing adobe CS 3 (2007) version for $10 instead of $800?

Also, how about Sql server 2005 which Microsoft sells to businesses for 25k+. I am a small business owner with 50 employees and I notice this ad on yahoo by Antiqua based company selling Sql server 2005 for $120 and its legal...hmm..now will I buy $120 version or call Microsoft...

I do not think many of you understand how much money this would cost US businesses. Anything that is protected via US or international copyright becomes fair game in Antiqua and it will have the WTO blessing. This is much larger than many of you realize.

cheers
Boon

[Jay Cohen]

Good find:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118234807094241989.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"As the world opens its doors, we must resist the sentiment that favors economic isolationism; this is not the time to retreat from the principles which have made America so strong and competitive," Mr. Paulson said.

Mr. Paulson's message favoring integration over isolationism comes as a number of bills are simmering in Congress that would penalize Chinese imports in retaliation for Beijing's policy of limiting appreciation of its currency. Some members of Congress have expressed anger that the Treasury Department refrained from citing China for manipulating the yuan in its latest report to Congress on foreign exchange.

[TheEngineer]

Agree. Also, as for the EU, agriculture will be affected. The Iowa Farm Bureau is sponsoring an upcoming presidential debate. I wonder if they'll be interested in asking questions about this.

Anyone here have contacts in Iowa?

[Russ Fox]

I know very well what it could cost US businesses. So let's assume that all this comes to pass.

Microsoft complains to Congress. Congress tells the WTO that if they don't immediately reverse this decision, the US will withdraw from the WTO, and impose trade sanctions on any country(ies) that allows intellectual property of Americans to be counterfeited/copied. I submit this is much more likely to happen if such sanctions ever took place.

What do I think will really happen? The WTO will be pressured by the US to accept token payments (forget the billions being stated today; it will be millions at most), and the WTO will agree that gambling isn't covered under GATT/WTO for the US (that it was a "typographical error").

Both sides on this will, in the end, compromise. This isn't what Jay Cohen wants to see as the resolution, but this is much, much more likely than billions being paid or intellectual property being copied. Both sides compromised after 30 years in the tax dispute. I see something similar happening here (but hopefully a lot faster than 30 years).

-- Russ

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]

Both sides on this will, in the end, compromise. This isn't what Jay Cohen wants to see as the resolution, but this is much, much more likely than billions being paid or intellectual property being copied. Both sides compromised after 30 years in the tax dispute. I see something similar happening here (but hopefully a lot faster than 30 years).

-- Russ

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm see my post above. I have always said there is a middle ground here.

[oldbookguy]

I have to agree with Owl, the U.S. will never leave to WTO, we use it as much as anyone else.

RE Byrd Amendment:

However, the last congress (2006) repealed the Byrd Amendment.

http://www.usmission.ch/Press2006/0202ByrdRepeal.html

So, yes, congress will at times respect the WTO.
The only question is will they this time or simply let Antigua do as it may and work out a deal punishing some U.S. company in dealings with the E.U. to protect the moralist religious right and far left who want to manage my/ your / our life in detail.

It did however take SIX YEARS before congress accepted the WTO and I guess was tired of the 72% penalty.

http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1094251285.html

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Good find:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118234807094241989.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"As the world opens its doors, we must resist the sentiment that favors economic isolationism; this is not the time to retreat from the principles which have made America so strong and competitive," Mr. Paulson said.

Mr. Paulson's message favoring integration over isolationism comes as a number of bills are simmering in Congress that would penalize Chinese imports in retaliation for Beijing's policy of limiting appreciation of its currency. Some members of Congress have expressed anger that the Treasury Department refrained from citing China for manipulating the yuan in its latest report to Congress on foreign exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a number of Paulson's speeches and writings prior to writing to him. Yes, he's a big free trader. I think we have hope there.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua and Barbuda requests authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua and Barbuda under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS”).

[/ QUOTE ]

In summary: we hit trips on the turn.

The divergent approaches of Antigua and the EU (plus Brazil and India) are interesting here because between the two approaches we get maximum pressure on the US.

Antigua has gone for IPR and or cash, the EU for other trade concessions. The assumption seems to be that the EU will prioritise farming, I doubt this is the case, the EU wants access to the US for third world farmers (partly to reduce pressure on access to their own market) but the EU is trying to reduce direct farming subsidies in both the US and EU. Boeing would be top of many's list but the concessions are a shopping list, they can go for Boeing then Microsoft then someone else. In the steel dispute some quite bizarre and local items were included by both sides to maximise political pressure on key opponents.

If we identified the top 5 anti gambling politicians and then identified the local businesses (or donors) that are important to them we would have a short list for the EU concessions to add to the shopping list.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
If we identified the top 5 anti gambling politicians and then identified the local businesses (or donors) that are important to them we would have a short list for the EU concessions to add to the shopping list.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly how the EU did it iin the FSC case. they targeted industries by Congressmen.

Antigua doesn't have as many options beyond IP but it will work fine.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly how the EU did it iin the FSC case. they targeted industries by Congressmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dirty business politics (and international trade) isn't it? LOL.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we identified the top 5 anti gambling politicians and then identified the local businesses (or donors) that are important to them we would have a short list for the EU concessions to add to the shopping list.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly how the EU did it iin the FSC case. they targeted industries by Congressmen.

Antigua doesn't have as many options beyond IP but it will work fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaker Pelosi voted for HR 4411, and I believe Sen. Boxer and Sen Feinstein oppose us. I wonder how these Californians will feel about the new legally pirated movies.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how these Californians will feel about the new legally pirated movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are big time Johnny Depp fans

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/M/b/2/piratespubnsm.jpg

[JPFisher55]

Even if the US ignores the WTO and does not agree to billions in sanctions or trade reprisals, unless the US withdraws from the WTO, then the Wire Act and UIGEA conflict with a properly ratified international treaty.
This conflict is cited in two of the allegations in the iMEGA litigation as grounds for injoining enforcement of these two laws.
Perhaps these compensation claims and the WTO rulings will mean more in a US federal court than in the USTR or Congress.

[redbeard]

Very informative thread guys and it sounds like very good news for the online community. Does anyone have a realistic time frame for how long it will take the U.S. Congress to be forced to react to this?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Very informative thread guys and it sounds like very good news for the online community. Does anyone have a realistic time frame for how long it will take the U.S. Congress to be forced to react to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Though its possible for them to act right away, as long as Bush is in office (consider the trade rep's actions so far), nothing will be finalized.

It also ought to take a year or two before the exact amount the US must pay is known. The only exception to this would be if (when?) the WTO allows Antigua to ignore copyright and other intelectual property rights. That could happen sooner and have a very dramatic and even immediate effect (on Congress anyway, probably still wont make a difference to Bush though: hundreds of billions sunk in Iraq and over 3,000 lives and he still cant admit he has made even a small mistake along the way...).

The short answer to your question: 6 months to 3 years.

Skallagrim

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we identified the top 5 anti gambling politicians and then identified the local businesses (or donors) that are important to them we would have a short list for the EU concessions to add to the shopping list.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly how the EU did it iin the FSC case. they targeted industries by Congressmen.

Antigua doesn't have as many options beyond IP but it will work fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaker Pelosi voted for HR 4411, and I believe Sen. Boxer and Sen Feinstein oppose us. I wonder how these Californians will feel about the new legally pirated movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The filing mentions Industrial Designs and Patents. Isn't that way more significant than the mere billions of "lost" revenue that might come from pirating dvds and music?

[daedalus]

What a confused state of U.S. public policy. This is going to take years to resolve the conflicts in federal law, WTO position, Justice Dept stance, International Treaties, and state laws. This is a friggin' mess, with no elegant solution. unreal.

[redbeard]

Thanks for the reply Skallagim. I think my hopes were a bit too high hoping for something to happen in short order -- 3 to 6 months. The wheels of government grind slowly so I imagine your time frame is right on spot.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the US ignores the WTO and does not agree to billions in sanctions or trade reprisals...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not pick on you JP, or anyone else, but I want to make a point. Engineer and Jay, among others (Owl too I think, others) have been making this point, but it has not sunk in yet. I understand why, since sometimes this stuff is hard to intuitively grasp, and as Americans we tend to think we control everything. (I blame society. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Okay, here is the point:

The United States does not have to agree to sanctions or trade restrictions against them! They will be unilaterally instituted with the WTO's blessing, and WITHOUT U.S. consent!

If the U.S. doesn't like it, tough titty. If they retaliate they will get hit with another not-so-pleasant WTO sanction. They have no recourse, other than magically finding some Al Qaeda cells in small Caribbean countries... and not even this bunch of right-wing sociopaths in the White House would try that (I hope).

[JPFisher55]

Heck I agree, Gregaton. You are absolutely right. And the only other alternative that the US has is to leave the WTO. This step would require legislation in Congress and Executive approval. Good luck with that. Right now the politicians cannot agree on anything.
My point is that the judicial action might provide relief quicker than the WTO trade sanction pressure.
How can any US case in WTO against China for violating intellectual property rights proceed with the current situation?

[Legislurker]

The US leaving the WTO would bring about a gloabal economic collapse that would make The Great Depression seem like a free weekend at Sandals.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
The US leaving the WTO would bring about a gloabal economic collapse that would make The Great Depression seem like a free weekend at Sandals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'm not sure about all that, but there would definitely be consequences.

Like I said, the U.S. will not leave the WTO over some puny amount $3.4 billion, and we sure as hell are not leaving on principle!

[TreyWilly]

At the VERY LEAST, isn't this situation great news for us because it will help sway some members of congress who are either neutral or only somewhat against our objective?

Simply, this shows that criminalizing Internet gambling has a price tag. These ramifications can help sway all but the most staunch moral opponents, who have become more and more isolated in the last six months.

The rest is gravy. It's some damn good, not-from-the-box gravy that gels when it gets cold, but it's still gravy.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply, this shows that criminalizing Internet gambling has a price tag. These ramifications can help sway all but the most staunch moral opponents, who have become more and more isolated in the last six months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I've been trying to say that exact thing for the past few months. Last year, opposing us was free. Hell, even we were giving free cards to draw against us, under various mistaken beliefs. Fighting back is better.

[tangled]

Jay:

Do you have an idea of what Antigua would agree to in negotitians? Do they really want, for example, Utah to sanction internet sports betting for its residents? Or would they take less, and if so, how much less?

It seems to me that Antigua wants the "pie" to be as big as possible because one thing they will have to face, should the US market open up, is increased competition from companies that may not be, or remain, in Antigua. But it is going to take a lot more time and energy to get the US to comply fully with the WTO rulings. In short, I expect Antigua is willing to compromise some. How much?

Also, if the US did work out a deal with Antigua, but it is less than the WTO ruling presribes, would the other countries (EU etc.) that have now also filed for compensation, be obliged to accept it too? Or does the US have to appease these countries seperately?

[Jay Cohen]

Without giving away all of Antigua's negotiating points, I will say that they would be willing to exempt Utah and Hawaii since they offer no gaming at all.

They are not willing to walk away fom sports because of some artificial distinction the US makes about sports wagering, while at the same time offering scratchers by the millions.

I'll answer the second part of your question in a little bit.

[tangled]

Thank you.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
Without giving away all of Antigua's negotiating points, I will say that they would be willing to exempt Utah and Hawaii since they offer no gaming at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given that the U.S. is a federal system (where regional governments have some degree of sovereignty), this is a good idea. Respecting our regional governments' autonomy in this matter is smart on their part.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but if Antigua, EU, and India start ignoring Copyrights and Patents, then I think the U.S. might take a different route.

[Shoe]

I have been a little out of the loop. What happened to our friend Jay?

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been a little out of the loop. What happened to our friend Jay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read Jay's title. I support you 100% from what I do know about you, but definitely have not heard if you have been prosecuted at all or face any current threats. Are you still the founder and involved in WSEX? (feel free to PM if this doesn't belong here). Keep up the good fight. I'm writing my congressman and senators tonight, if there is anything else I can do to help please let me know. Thanks!

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This ruling means nothing and is a dead end. The US will just take the ball and walk home. The US has ignored WTO rulings in the past and will continue to ignore it so long as it has the international clout to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but if Antigua, EU, and India start ignoring Copyrights and Patents, then I think the U.S. might take a different route.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and if the U.S. tries to "call Antigua's bluff" so to speak, we'll see how long it takes Microsoft, Sony, the RIAA, etc... to get this law changed once their profits start taking a hit due to no more copyright protection. One thing is for sure, the U.S. coporations that would get hit by this definitely have the power to influence our lawmakers.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if the US did work out a deal with Antigua, but it is less than the WTO ruling presribes, would the other countries (EU etc.) that have now also filed for compensation, be obliged to accept it too? Or does the US have to appease these countries seperately?

[/ QUOTE ]

Antigua will have two actions. First, their remedy phase from their case. Second, a claim against the withdrawal of commitments.

As I understand it, every country is on their own and makes their own deal. None of these other countries are looking to save their gambling businesses, they are just taking advantage of an opportunity the US has put in front of them, a potentially very profitable opportunity.

[KEW]

Any ideas what this could be or the importance and timing of the meeting????

http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...bill_46575.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/antigua_delegates_meet_with_frank_over_internet_ga mbling_bill_46575.html)

[Legislurker]

Do you know definitively if the US can back down from recommittments if the price is too steep? One thing I fear is the Bush team is so [censored] stupid that they have initiated a gigantic penalty/compensation phase they can't stop. Basically, can they just say we give, we will abide by our GATS committments, EU, Japan, et al get nothing.

[Jay Cohen]

There's a big, long planned CARICOM conference in DC this week. It's only natural that they make a few stops and say hello to potential allies.

Yes, the US can un-withdraw the withdrawal of commitments. Withdrawal or not, Antigua is moving forward with their case. They don't believe withdrawal is an acceptable remedy to an adverse decision.

If the US hits the un-withdraw button, Antigua is one step better than where they were on May 3rd because the US has waived their final appeal and the deadline has passed.

[Legislurker]

USTR still in denial:

“We look forward to learning the basis upon which WTO members – who neither requested nor made WTO commitments on gambling and betting in the Uruguay Round and had no basis to believe that the United States had made such a commitment – intend to support their claims of interest.”

But the US was more conciliatory towards the Caribbean nation.

Link to full story - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae33b3c0-1f8e-11dc-ac86-000b5df10621.html

Another story, not much new, but will stick it up.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/wto_antigua_us_gambling_eu_india_japan/

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
USTR still in denial:
“We look forward to learning the basis upon which WTO members – who neither requested nor made WTO commitments on gambling and betting in the Uruguay Round and had no basis to believe that the United States had made such a commitment – intend to support their claims of interest.”


[/ QUOTE ]

Yah this is complete denial of reality considering the U.S. Free Trade Agreement team was trying to get Korea to open its gambling market.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/159898.html

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, every country is on their own and makes their own deal. None of these other countries are looking to save their gambling businesses, they are just taking advantage of an opportunity the US has put in front of them, a potentially very profitable opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so for the UK. The UK has the stock market falls to help size its claim (billions).

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, every country is on their own and makes their own deal. None of these other countries are looking to save their gambling businesses, they are just taking advantage of an opportunity the US has put in front of them, a potentially very profitable opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so for the UK. The UK has the stock market falls to help size its claim (billions).

[/ QUOTE ]

The UK does not speak on its own, only as part of the EU.

My point is no matter what losses they can show, they are just using it as a gauge for the concessions they will seek in other sectors. See the thread about the EU filing and the quote from the EU representative.

The EU will probably seek some sort of agriculture tariff or the right not to accept hormone enhanced beef in exchange for letting the US out of their commitment in the gambling sector.

[Jay Cohen]

Something else that just hit me. The EU may not be able to point to any of those market losses. They are bringing a claim against the withdrawal of the commitment. The calculation period will be from here forward. Not that they couldn't show a lot of lost potential.

[Legislurker]

My understanding is that the WTO arbitration panels do take account of potential. The legalese way of looking at it is, you made a committment that is binding UNTIL the next round of multilateral GATS signings(considering the current round has stalled out for almost a decade now). That is where China is scary. Gambling is illegal in China for the most part, but they can argue that in the future during the treaty, they may legalize it. The way WTO agreements are supposed to work is a gradual lowering of barriers to trade. We(the US) are backing out of that process, and so paying a penalty. The access to the the US gaming sector is an ASSET irrespective of whether or not you currently have a gaming industry. Removing that access is taking away value from other signatories to GATS. For so many reasons, this is a huge precedent setter IF the US does not back down. This is uncharted territory, and it seems no one is going to cut us slack.

[oldbookguy]

Of the countries filing against the U.S. those who reserved 'third party rights' at the beginning have the same rights as Antigua it seems.

This is from the WTO Web Site on Third parties:
Article 10: Third Parties back to top


1. The interests of the parties to a dispute and those of other Members under a covered agreement at issue in the dispute shall be fully taken into account during the panel process.

2. Any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and having notified its interest to the DSB (referred to in this Understanding as a “third party”) shall have an opportunity to be heard by the panel and to make written submissions to the panel. These submissions shall also be given to the parties to the dispute and shall be reflected in the panel report.

3. Third parties shall receive the submissions of the parties to the dispute to the first meeting of the panel.

4. If a third party considers that a measure already the subject of a panel proceeding nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to it under any covered agreement, that Member may have recourse to normal dispute settlement procedures under this Understanding. Such a dispute shall be referred to the original panel wherever possible.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the countries filing against the U.S. those who reserved 'third party rights' at the beginning have the same rights as Antigua it seems.

This is from the WTO Web Site on Third parties:
Article 10: Third Parties back to top


1. The interests of the parties to a dispute and those of other Members under a covered agreement at issue in the dispute shall be fully taken into account during the panel process.

2. Any Member having a substantial interest in a matter before a panel and having notified its interest to the DSB (referred to in this Understanding as a “third party”) shall have an opportunity to be heard by the panel and to make written submissions to the panel. These submissions shall also be given to the parties to the dispute and shall be reflected in the panel report.

3. Third parties shall receive the submissions of the parties to the dispute to the first meeting of the panel.

4. If a third party considers that a measure already the subject of a panel proceeding nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to it under any covered agreement, that Member may have recourse to normal dispute settlement procedures under this Understanding. Such a dispute shall be referred to the original panel wherever possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the EU was a 3rd party, it can impose sanctions as well and not just wait for compensation?

[Jay Cohen]

Other countries are making their claims under Article XXI of the GATS. It's very short, everyone interested should read it.

http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm#articleXXI

Whether or not they were a third party in the Dispute Settlement Process is irrelevant.

Antigua is the only country with standing for sanctions right now. The other countries could have joined the case years ago but chose to do nothing. Today, all they are left with is seeking compensatory adjustments in response to the attempted withdrawal of the US's commitment.

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
Without giving away all of Antigua's negotiating points, I will say that they would be willing to exempt Utah and Hawaii since they offer no gaming at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey not so fast! I live in Utah!

Let's compromise and allow it in Utah and not Hawaii.

[spino1i]

This meeting occurs on July 24. If the WTO approves the copyright sanction on that day, and the US continues to sit around with their thumb up their ass, how long from July 24 before Antigua can start ignoring US copyrights?

[TheEngineer]

In case anyone's interested, here's a biography of the USTR, Ambassador Susan C. Schwab:

http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Bios/Ambassador_Susan_C_Schwab.html
Ambassador Susan C. Schwab was nominated to be United States Trade Representative by President George W. Bush on April 18, 2006, and was confirmed as USTR by the United States Senate on June 8, 2006. As USTR, Ambassador Schwab is a member of the President's Cabinet and serves as the President’s principal trade advisor, negotiator, and spokesperson on trade issues......

[TheEngineer]

The USTR homepage, at www.ustr.gov/index.html (http://www.ustr.gov/index.html) , doesn't list this issue as "Top News". Also, an "Internet gambling" term search (http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?account=1003&q=Internet+Gambling&submit.x =14&submit.y=9) returns 289 documents. I checked the first 20....all support the US position! There's hardly a mention of decisions against us at all, except for rebuttal statements. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Should we be surprised?

[TheEngineer]

USTR Contact Info:

contactustr@ustr.eop.gov

600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508

WTO(-Related Issues): 202-395-3063

www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Contact_Us/Section_Index.html (http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Contact_Us/Section_Index.html)

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
The USTR homepage, at www.ustr.gov/index.html (http://www.ustr.gov/index.html) , doesn't list this issue as "Top News". Also, an "Internet gambling" term search (http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?account=1003&q=Internet+Gambling&submit.x =14&submit.y=9) returns 289 documents. I checked the first 20....all support the US position! There's hardly a mention of decisions against us at all, except for rebuttal statements. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Should we be surprised?

[/ QUOTE ]
Propaganda? From the Bush administration? I'm shocked sir! Where is you patriotism? Why do you hate freedom?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The USTR homepage, at www.ustr.gov/index.html (http://www.ustr.gov/index.html) , doesn't list this issue as "Top News". Also, an "Internet gambling" term search (http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?account=1003&q=Internet+Gambling&submit.x =14&submit.y=9) returns 289 documents. I checked the first 20....all support the US position! There's hardly a mention of decisions against us at all, except for rebuttal statements. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Should we be surprised?

[/ QUOTE ]
Propaganda? From the Bush administration? I'm shocked sir! Where is you patriotism? Why do you hate freedom?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe. They actually list this case as one they won! Maybe there's a Mission Accomplished banner hanging at the USTR. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

USTR Dispute Settlement (http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/WTO/asset_upload_file962_5696.pdf)

[ QUOTE ]
14-U.S. won on core issue(s): (1) Sections 301-310 of Trade Act of 1974 (EU); .... (11) Gambling and betting services (Antigua & Barbuda)....

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there's a Mission Accomplished banner hanging at the USTR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd and hard.

[Legislurker]

I don't like starting new threads, and I guess this one is most relevant. I was nosing around at Cato, and found something on us finally.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/20/antigua-and-barbuda-raises-the-stakes/

They are holding a forum on July 25th, coincidence or not, tis the day after the committee meets to discuss Antigua's compensation claim. I am going to email this guy with a link to this thread, invite him to keep us up to date, and maybe provide some ideas of what is happening. The Libertarian Party may be a joke, but The Cato Institute is very competent, professional, and respected.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

The United States should face commercial sanctions worth more than US$3.4 billion (euro2.5 billion) each year for its failure to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling that its Internet gambling restrictions are illegal, the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda said Wednesday.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is $3.4 billion a year in line with any damage claimed? Is this to be retroactive at all? How is A/B justifying future payments?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like starting new threads, and I guess this one is most relevant. I was nosing around at Cato, and found something on us finally.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/20/antigua-and-barbuda-raises-the-stakes/

They are holding a forum on July 25th, coincidence or not, tis the day after the committee meets to discuss Antigua's compensation claim. I am going to email this guy with a link to this thread, invite him to keep us up to date, and maybe provide some ideas of what is happening. The Libertarian Party may be a joke, but The Cato Institute is very competent, professional, and respected.

[/ QUOTE ]


While of course we should welcome any discussion that aids our cause, note that the Cato institute IS based on Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist political philosophy, as can been seen from their wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute) entry. And so anyone who thinks the Libertarian party is a joke is probably going to think the same about think tanks based on the same underlying philosophy.

[Legislurker]

The Libertarian Party IS a joke, because of all the whackos who ruin the conventions and run to abolish drug laws and taxes while strumming mandolins. The Cato Institute is one of the most prestigious and respected think-tanks in D.C. across the spectrum for the quality of their work. Sort of the way the Green Party is a joke, but NRDC is a highly respected think-tank.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
The Libertarian Party IS a joke, because of all the whackos who ruin the conventions and run to abolish drug laws and taxes while strumming mandolins. The Cato Institute is one of the most prestigious and respected think-tanks in D.C. across the spectrum for the quality of their work. Sort of the way the Green Party is a joke, but NRDC is a highly respected think-tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW the Cato Institute has some credibility and profile in the UK, the Libertarian Party none.

[Gregatron]

The Libertarians' main problem is very simply a plurality electoral system. Our electoral system is constituted such that only two parties will be competitive. Even if the Libertarians got their act together it's hard to see them being as competitive as the Liberal-Democrats in the UK, who consistently get about 20% (or more) of the overall vote but less then 10% (or less) of the seats. Plurality electoral systems create disproportionalities that reward two parties (Democrat/Republican or Tory/Labour).

Google "Duverger's law" if you like.

EDIT: Sorry for the off topic post on this good topic.

[Legislurker]

Thanks very much for your comments regarding my recent post on the
US-Gambling dispute.

I, too, have been amazed at the relative lack of coverage of this issue
(the trade angle, I mean) in the press. My friend Radley Balko has done
a lot of stuff on it, both while he was at Cato and on his own blog,
www.theagitator.com (http://www.theagitator.com), but there is little or no studies on it in the
think-tank domain. In fact, the little two page paper I did on it seems
to get a lot of comments like yours, i.e. "I'm glad someone is looking
at this issue".

It is difficult to gauge the feelings in DC about this. I have not
attended any forums on it, and most trade wonks I speak to have heard of
the case only peripherally and most comment along the lines of
"dangerous precedent" but nothing formal seems to be proposed. Barney
Frank has, of course, been very vocal about his opposition to the ban on
civil liberties grounds, but I don't know that the trade implications of
the ban have sunk in.

To that end, I decided to take the initiative and hold a forum here on
July 25th to discuss the case. Mark Mendel, Antigua's lawyer, has agreed
to speak. I will say a few remarks, and John Jackson, a prominent
international trade lawyer, is also going to speak. Our forums are
streamed live over the internet, so stay tuned to our website,
www.freetrade.org (http://www.freetrade.org), for details as they become available. Hope you can
watch, and that you find the discussion useful.

Thanks again for your email and your interest,

Sallie James
Trade Policy Analyst
Center for Trade Policy Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001

[TheEngineer]

Nice article on the dispute at http://www.caribbean360.com/.....4548.html (http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Business/Stories/2007/06/25/NEWS0000004548.html)

BUSHWHACKED! Antigua to impose US$3.4 billion sanctions on USA

WASHINGTON DC, June 25, 2007 - The smiles were either a formality or disbelief as Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer of Antigua and Barbuda met with President George W Bush and served him the news first hand that he is preparing US$3.4 billion in sanctions against Washington for failure to adhere to a trade ruling.......

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft complains to Congress. Congress tells the WTO that if they don't immediately reverse this decision, the US will withdraw from the WTO, and impose trade sanctions on any country(ies) that allows intellectual property of Americans to be counterfeited/copied. I submit this is much more likely to happen if such sanctions ever took place.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ the US withdrawing from the WTO. That's a gamble that could easily cost us in the trillions, much less the billions.

[briton]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice article on the dispute at http://www.caribbean360.com/.....4548.html (http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Business/Stories/2007/06/25/NEWS0000004548.html)

BUSHWHACKED! Antigua to impose US$3.4 billion sanctions on USA

WASHINGTON DC, June 25, 2007 - The smiles were either a formality or disbelief as Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer of Antigua and Barbuda met with President George W Bush and served him the news first hand that he is preparing US$3.4 billion in sanctions against Washington for failure to adhere to a trade ruling.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad Bush is so stubbern! It would be like him to make a mistake for our country just cause he thinks making a stance against "gambling" is the right thing to do

[Cactus Jack]

Well, he could invade.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he could invade.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Antigua is one among many countries worried about that possibility.

[d3gener4te]

Holaaaaaaa

[1p0kerboy]

There is significant evidence that Antigua is developing WMDs. Holla.

[TheEngineer]

All: there's an informative article on the U.S. WTO situation at Bush Decision to Withdraw U.S. Gambling Sector From WTO Jurisdiction Highlights Hazards of Fast-Track-Enabled Trade Agreements (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48722480_george_w_bush_bush_decision_withdraw_u_s_ gambling_sector_wto_jurisdiction_highlights_hazard ). It supports the USTR's actions, but it's interesting information for us to know.

[oldbookguy]

Just read the article and sent the following response via the contact link:

I just read your article and the following quote from it shows how uninformed many are; "But the fact that this action will trigger major demands by other countries for compensation under WTO rules also highlights how the fast track negotiating system has enabled a series of trade pacts that undermine the public interest."
This WTO agreement was done under the Clinton Administration LONG before 'fast track' ever existed. In-fact, this agreement took YEARS to work out.

I suggest GET IT RIGHT or DON'T GET IT AT ALL!!!!!

False information is the problem anymore, no one checks their facts.....


I Suggest we fill the in box there correcting even this bad information.

obg

[Legislurker]

Don't you love the line about state's attorney generals wanting the WTO committments withdrawn in the cross-border gaming sector? Id lay 3 to 1 40 state AGs have no clue what that phrase means.

[TheEngineer]

Good article at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-07-04/story3.htm.

ANTIGUA GAMBLING DISPUTE: MAJOR ECONOMIES DEMAND COMPENSATION FROM US

The Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda is no longer alone in its efforts to make it harder for the US to avoid complying with multiple WTO dispute rulings against Washington's restrictions on overseas internet gambling.

Eight Members, including the EU, Costa Rica, and Japan served notice before a 22 June deadline that they will seek compensation for lost revenues potentially worth billions of dollars if the US uses rarely-invoked General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) procedures to explicitly exclude internet gambling from its multilateral liberalisation commitments (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 May 2007).

Meanwhile, Antigua announced that it would seek to impose USD 3.443 billion in annual retaliatory sanctions against a range of US patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, as well as services companies.....

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
Good article at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-07-04/story3.htm.

ANTIGUA GAMBLING DISPUTE: MAJOR ECONOMIES DEMAND COMPENSATION FROM US

The Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda is no longer alone in its efforts to make it harder for the US to avoid complying with multiple WTO dispute rulings against Washington's restrictions on overseas internet gambling.

Eight Members, including the EU, Costa Rica, and Japan served notice before a 22 June deadline that they will seek compensation for lost revenues potentially worth billions of dollars if the US uses rarely-invoked General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) procedures to explicitly exclude internet gambling from its multilateral liberalisation commitments (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 May 2007).

Meanwhile, Antigua announced that it would seek to impose USD 3.443 billion in annual retaliatory sanctions against a range of US patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, as well as services companies.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Any opinions on this section:

"However, even if Antigua were to be allowed to legally break US patents, trademarks, and copyrights, the legitimate copies thus produced would only be eligible for sale in the country's tiny internal market. It is not clear whether Antigua could, for instance, export copied drugs to say, the EU, without breaching international or domestic rules"

[Legislurker]

I think that is murky because IP sanctions have been levied once or twice, and the country(s) they were levied against quickly complied/negotiated or whatnot to end the sanctions before resale occured. This is an unfamiliar and unknown area, but I think the EU's track record helping smaller countries at the WTO they would allow pirated materials in their market.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good article at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-07-04/story3.htm.

ANTIGUA GAMBLING DISPUTE: MAJOR ECONOMIES DEMAND COMPENSATION FROM US

The Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda is no longer alone in its efforts to make it harder for the US to avoid complying with multiple WTO dispute rulings against Washington's restrictions on overseas internet gambling.

Eight Members, including the EU, Costa Rica, and Japan served notice before a 22 June deadline that they will seek compensation for lost revenues potentially worth billions of dollars if the US uses rarely-invoked General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) procedures to explicitly exclude internet gambling from its multilateral liberalisation commitments (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 May 2007).

Meanwhile, Antigua announced that it would seek to impose USD 3.443 billion in annual retaliatory sanctions against a range of US patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, as well as services companies.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Any opinions on this section:

"However, even if Antigua were to be allowed to legally break US patents, trademarks, and copyrights, the legitimate copies thus produced would only be eligible for sale in the country's tiny internal market. It is not clear whether Antigua could, for instance, export copied drugs to say, the EU, without breaching international or domestic rules"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not set in stone either way and it would be up to the WTO panel to decide.