Newsweek Article

[laugh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20790111/site/newsweek/

[JPFisher55]

Very good article; thank you for posting link to it.

[IndyFish]

Very nice indeed. C'mon, WTO, don't let 'em -- er, us -- off the hook!

[TheEngineer]

It's about time the media started covering this. Let's continue to notify affected companies.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

wow i liked that article a lot.

[tangled]

Great article. Near perfect.

What also I would have liked, is if the article had made more clear the fact that the WTO is not trying to force online gaming on us, merely expecting us to be consistent in our approach to online gaming in respect to domestic and foreign industries.

Also, I would have liked the article to point out that online gaming still continues significantly, so the US is not gaining anything with its approach, only losing.

But still a great article. One thing seems clear: this problem is not going away and is definitely going to get more media attention.

Maybe, instead of asking presidential candidates what there stance is on the UIGEA, we should consider asking if they would at least negotiate in good faith with Antigua over this. That would allow the dems and the moderate republicans to take a favorable stance to us, while not coming across as permissive.

[KEW]

My favorite part:

"It's no surprise that lobbyists from Silicon Valley and Hollywood are now storming Capitol Hill, pushing for a deal. Last month the Motion Picture Association of America urged the U.S. trade representative to negotiate with Antigua in order to prevent bootlegging".

"Allies" that could careless about online gaming but stand to suffer HUGE losses...

[kidpokeher]

My favorite part:

"...says Sallie James, trade-policy analyst at Washington's Cato Institute. "But if I had to bet, I would say that by this time next year America will have changed its laws." And in this case, that means all bets will be on."


Oh do I so much want this to be true!

[DeadMoneyDad]

My least favorite part. Safe and Secure .org

Created less than a month ago.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
"...says Sallie James, trade-policy analyst at Washington's Cato Institute. "But if I had to bet, I would say that by this time next year America will have changed its laws." And in this case, that means all bets will be on."


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most beautiful thing I've read in a long time /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bond18]

Excellent article.

If this all goes through it'll be like the happy ending of a movie where the bad guy really gets whats coming.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite part:

"...says Sallie James, trade-policy analyst at Washington's Cato Institute. "But if I had to bet, I would say that by this time next year America will have changed its laws." And in this case, that means all bets will be on."


Oh do I so much want this to be true!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked her opinion a few times on this and that is by far the most optimistic I have heard her for our side. I still don't know if Cato is more than just an observer on this.

[sethypooh21]

Cato is pretty strongly Libertarian, so grains of salt and all...

[Adebisi]

The whole intellectual property retalliation seems kind of weak in that it only really affects a few U.S. industries and won't affect them that much. Isn't there already rampant software/movie/music pirating going in Russia and a few of the Asian countries? How much difference can Antigua really make? I could easily the U.S. continuing their current policy pretty much ignore these sanctions.

I wish the WTO could/would do something like require all other member countries to impose stiff tariffs on U.S. exports if it continues to refuse to comply with the ruling.

If every U.S. car, bushel of corn, or computer chip or whatever faced an immediate 100% price markup in WTO member counties, we'd have legal online gambling real quick.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole intellectual property retalliation seems kind of weak in that it only really affects a few U.S. industries and won't affect them that much. Isn't there already rampant software/movie/music pirating going in Russia and a few of the Asian countries? How much difference can Antigua really make? I could easily the U.S. continuing their current policy pretty much ignore these sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that IP retaliation would make it perfectly legal for Americans and others to buy their CDs, software, movies etc. from Antigua dirt cheap, which would obviously put a huge dent in the producer's expected profits. The key is that affected industries have very powerful lobbies in D.C. so the sanctions will not be ignored and they would force a compromise. The easiest way out for the govn't would be to legitimize online gambling sites.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Cato is pretty strongly Libertarian, so grains of salt and all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but she works for the free trade part. Free trade is better than restricted trade. Unilaterally lowering your trade barriers is better than not. So, to Cato, the US having to lower trade barriers to foreign countries, even if the other countries don't, is good in their eyes. The personal freedom argument is trumped(I think) in their eyes by the economic well-being of cheaper foreign goods. Thats the read Ive gotten off of Cato.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that IP retaliation would make it perfectly legal for Americans and others to buy their CDs, software, movies etc. from Antigua dirt cheap, which would obviously put a huge dent in the producer's expected profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wouldn't make it legal for Americans to buy the stuff, jut for Antingua to sell it. The RIAA or MPAA would be able to sue someone for downloading songs or movies from Antigua the same as from anywhere else. What they wouldn't be able to do is sue the Antiguan companies doing the pirating, or have the Antiguan police take action.

[Legislurker]

Its a very ambiguous situation. I think we discussed it in a previous thread. The WTO has never had to do this before where a country actually followed thru with the IP sanctions.
Who can they sell to has been a big question. I think what the movie and song people fear are high quality file sharing DVDs and MP3s hitting every file sharing site out there. One legit bought DVD in Sweden turns into a hundred thousand really fast. And IP isnt limited to songs and movies. The fear of the unknown is what makes it scary to established industries that rely on patent and copyright protection to make $.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a very ambiguous situation. I think we discussed it in a previous thread. The WTO has never had to do this before where a country actually followed thru with the IP sanctions.
Who can they sell to has been a big question. I think what the movie and song people fear are high quality file sharing DVDs and MP3s hitting every file sharing site out there. One legit bought DVD in Sweden turns into a hundred thousand really fast. And IP isnt limited to songs and movies. The fear of the unknown is what makes it scary to established industries that rely on patent and copyright protection to make $.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can dowload proabbly every movie or song I can think for free on the internet right now. How is Antigua getting involved in this going to make it THAT much more of a problem. I can probably go to the nearest big city and buy DVDs for $3 a piece from some guy on street corner or a sketchy store.

If the U.S. government refuses to comply with the WTO ruling that told them to stop enforcing their domestic online gambling laws, they're not going to stop enforcing their domestic intellectual property laws to comply with the WTO's sanction. It's not like Best Buy and Blockbuster are going to start getting their inventory for pennies on the dollar from Antigua

So what if they don't have any legal grounds to stop piracy in Antigua. They don't have the desire, resources, or, necessary level of cooperation from local authorities to stop piracy in any 3rd world country.

I could probably move to Colombia, or Russia, or Africa right now, make a lot of money pirating American CD's and DVD's. The local cops probably wouldn't take any notice of it all. The authorities in most countries have far more pressing concerns than protecting the intellectual property rights of foreigners that live thousands of miles away. Whatever international IP regime people think exists is nothing more than a fiction.

I think all this really does is get another few lobbying forces on the side of online gaming. It's not going to make the gov't say "Oh [censored]! We better repeal the UIGEA and change the Wire Act or we'll be screwed."

[Adebisi]

Just another comment here:

Does anyone else think it's incredibly stupid for Antingua, Online gaming firms, and the WTO to force this issue now?

It seems pretty likely at this point that a Democrat will be President 16 months from now, and if this issue gets pressed then, I think a favorable result is FAR more likely.

The current administration is just too likely to stand their ground on this regardless of what potential harm might come of it, and by the time the Dem's take power, it won't really be a big issue so no one will care.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Just another comment here:

Does anyone else think it's incredibly stupid for Antingua, Online gaming firms, and the WTO to force this issue now?

It seems pretty likely at this point that a Democrat will be President 16 months from now, and if this issue gets pressed then, I think a favorable result is FAR more likely.

The current administration is just too likely to stand their ground on this regardless of what potential harm might come of it, and by the time the Dem's take power, it won't really be a big issue so no one will care.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A WTO case takes years. This is from 2003. Janet Reno
was as much a Nazi as Ashcroft or Gonzales.

[Adebisi]

I know the case started way back in 2003, which is why I think it's bad timing to deal with the sanctions now (the article made it sound like the this may be happening in the next few weeks) rather than waiting until February of '09.

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent article.

If this all goes through it'll be like the happy ending of a massage .

[/ QUOTE ]

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Great article. Near perfect.

What also I would have liked, is if the article had made more clear the fact that the WTO is not trying to force online gaming on us, merely expecting us to be consistent in our approach to online gaming in respect to domestic and foreign industries.



[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. also that US could have opted out of the gambling portion in the mid 90s but didn't, and that we only announced this we hadn't intend to make a gambling agreement once we'd lost WTO rulings for 6 years.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I would have liked the article to point out that online gaming still continues significantly, so the US is not gaining anything with its approach, only losing.


[/ QUOTE ]

there was a part where tehy said that the US still makes up 60% of online gambling.

that was paradise poker in the picture right? i didn't think americans could play there. would've made more sense to see stars (preferably with a visible url, hehe) or ftp.

[tangled]

Adebisi;

You have raised two legitimate and cautionary points about the copyright infringement aspect of this case: one, that the laws in the US, on the buying side of the action, will not change, you can still be sued for downloading unpaid for material; and two, there already is rampant infringement occurring so not much new pressure will be put on the affected industries.

To the first point: are you sure it won’t be legal to download and even sell this material? To my lawman’s mind this case would be different then the famed Napster case awhile back in that there are potentially better legal legs for the downloaders to stand on. For example, it could be argued that the US treaty obligations are material here , and usually treaties are supposed to trump domestic law.

Also, like in the Napster case, any legal action would be civil, no one will be put in criminal jeopardy so there would be less risk for anyone who wanted to test the legal waters. And any case that would be pursued in the courts would get a great deal of media attention, which would increase the risk to the affected industries if they lost in court, even to a point if they won.

To the second point, I’m sure there is a great deal of illegal infringement occurring, but there must be a great deal of people to whom the law is important even if it can be bypassed. If not then why are these companies still able to sell their product as they want?

And this is all just about the US market. There still is the European market were the legal issues would be harder to navigate then here in the US.

My point is that a good corporate lawyer, I suspect, would advise that there still could be a substantial financial risk for their clients. Companies are used to taking risks, but there is usually something to gain when they do There is nothing to be gained here. Smart companies avoid these kind of reverse freerolls and the way they would do that in this matter would be to put pressure on Washington. And that is the goal of the WTO in issuing copyright exemptions.

Of course, maybe I am being just too optimistic. ????

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great article. Near perfect.

What also I would have liked, is if the article had made more clear the fact that the WTO is not trying to force online gaming on us, merely expecting us to be consistent in our approach to online gaming in respect to domestic and foreign industries.



[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. also that US could have opted out of the gambling portion in the mid 90s but didn't, and that we only announced this we hadn't intend to make a gambling agreement once we'd lost WTO rulings for 6 years.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I would have liked the article to point out that online gaming still continues significantly, so the US is not gaining anything with its approach, only losing.


[/ QUOTE ]

there was a part where tehy said that the US still makes up 60% of online gambling.

that was paradise poker in the picture right? i didn't think americans could play there. would've made more sense to see stars (preferably with a visible url, hehe) or ftp.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes my criticisms were overstated. I guess I just want these points to be made with a sledge hammer as my mind's eye can see the Nanny's overblown indignation at how these "Godless Europeans" are trying to tell righteous Americans how to live. And that is not what's happening at all.

[JPFisher55]

If Antiqua is granted the right to violate US IP laws, I suppose that a US IP holder could sue a US citizen who purchases from an Antiqua IP "pirate." However, unlike Napster customers, the US citizen would have the WTO decision and sanction as a potential defense. One adverse ruling and the music and software industry would lose their IP rights. I agree that some IP piracy occurs throughout the world, but I doubt that the music, movie and software industry want to take the chance on the adverse results of Antiqua and possibly other nations, can legally ignore US IP laws.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can dowload proabbly every movie or song I can think for free on the internet right now.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of these companies are very zealous in protecting their IP. They send detectives around the world looking for infringements, and they look to the laws to protect them (including suing downloaders). The LAST thing they want (especially the MPAA) is for the WTO to authorize infringement of IP.

Also, all companies have IP/copyrighted work. These include surgical instruments, software, books, computer chip design, etc. These companies value this just like real money, because that's what it is.

As for timing, I think Antiuga should just do it as soon as they can. This administration cares more about corporate IP than a Democratic administration likely will. Also, this Democratic Congress is less likely to come up with offsetting tax breaks. And, there's no guarantee that the next president will be a Democrat, and even less of a guarantee that he or she will be on our side. For example, Clinton could be worse, as she could feasibly support an actual ban while not caring at all about corporate IP (except maybe her Hollywood friends). Also, Republicans could feasibly retake a house in Congress (highly unlikely at this point, but not impossible).

Finally, the U.S. has been trying to delay this forever, so I think Antigua just needs to continue pushing forward.

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
To prevent the use of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep. James Leach [R-IA]
Cost: < $1 per American over the 2007-2011 period
The cost is estimated from a Congressional Budget Office report, by dividing the estimated cost of implementing the legislation by the U.S. population. It is of course just a gross estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Leach boy....your ban isn't free. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Adebisi;

You have raised two legitimate and cautionary points about the copyright infringement aspect of this case: one, that the laws in the US, on the buying side of the action, will not change, you can still be sued for downloading unpaid for material; and two, there already is rampant infringement occurring so not much new pressure will be put on the affected industries.

Of course, maybe I am being just too optimistic. ????

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollywood and Bill Gates are crapping their collective pants because a WTO decision will give the plantifs the right to sell copyrighted material without having to pay the leagal copyright fees. Antigua's cost for Bill's latest wizbang product or the next 2 billion grossing movie is near zip.

The US is trying to get suport to stop China and others to stop IP violations. They will withdraw from any future talks and the USTR's job becomes a joke if the US tried to block a horde of legal "illegal" Antigua products. Even if they just lost the non-domestic market the money is huge. I could see the EU blocking registered copyrighted US product shipments infavor of Antigua's "bootlegs" just to say FU to the US.

But again what the hell do I know,


D$D

[Legislurker]

If the US allowed people to be sued for violating IP laws when purchasing from Antigua, Antigua could just keep upping the amount they sold, and the overall price tag might keep rising.
TE is hitting where I suggested they go in the first place. Industrial plans. AND Antigua can market the pirated goods to consumers. How many average people with computers still don't know the basics of [censored] or [censored]? Or think its illegal. Imagine popup ads online telling you where to go for DVD files of newly released movies for $.25. Or imagine China able to buy designs for advanced electronics from Antigua they can't get a hold of now because of laws. The EU is also a wild card. They have cross filed patents from US comapnies on file. Some of the designs are still semi-secret, but no more if they help Antigua. AND before the EU can reap its service sector concessions, the US has to comply with the damages to Antigua. So the incentive is there. The songs and movies may be headliners, but there is a LOT to be gained selling other IP that isn't as easy as you think to get your hands on. Big pharma and bioengineering should be up in arms as well.

Edit: Wow I can't mention file sharing programs?

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
Big pharma and bioengineering should be up in arms as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, If I could order lots of fun drugs from Antigua for like 10 cents a pill, I hope George Bush keeps fighting the good fight against online gambling.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole intellectual property retalliation seems kind of weak in that it only really affects a few U.S. industries and won't affect them that much. Isn't there already rampant software/movie/music pirating going in Russia and a few of the Asian countries? How much difference can Antigua really make? I could easily the U.S. continuing their current policy pretty much ignore these sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the IP doesn't just apply to a select few industries. Doesn't this also apply to pharmaceuticals, books, electronics, etc, etc?

I know the company I work for (electronics manufacturing) released a new piece of equipment almost a year ago and still haven't made up for the price of R&D. If Joe Schmoe in Antigua could sell it for dirt cheap, we'd never turn a profit. I bet Pfizer doesn't want a "little CHEAP blue pill" either.

I just don't see the U.S. letting an IP ruling stand, regardless of the actual damage it does.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The US is trying to get suport to stop China and others to stop IP violations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually is perhaps the funniests of all, we, the U.S., just filed or are in the process of filing a WTO case aginst China.

Perhaps the USTR wants to stop China so they can let Antigua pick up the slack.

No, really, Sony, Apple, MS, Hollywood and all really can be our best allies.

TE, you asked when I said "push congress into a corner".

This is it, the NewsWeek story and the cost, not 15 Billion, I think they quoted Mendel stating a total end cost 100B?

That is a lot. I suspect it will be more.

Lets see, 100B per year, every year / 310 million American Citizens = what, 322. per year per citizen whereas Leach estimated the cost at less than 1.00 per taxpayer.

The last WTO case congress had to settle was 49 billion over some sort of import fees with the E.U. That one cost 210 BILLION in tax breaks to U.S. companies to off set the import easing + the 49 Billion. Cost = 260 Billion.

The 100:15 adds up (though not so much what Mendel reasons), I think NW is going to be close on the money.

This is the corner along with the court case of C.H. and the 'legal' skill wagering already in place.

We need to make the poker ban a tough sell to voters.

obg

[Legislurker]

Lets see if we can a god question with jobs and $$$ cost together for Skall to try to ask a NH primary candidate. Like, Dear Mr Obama, how much is the remote gaming ban, totally ineffective and skirted, worth keeping in place in terms of jobs and cost to taxpayers? And try to get a quote from it in the press. If the PPA can do anything press related, getting a candidate to answer that Q to a reporter where they have to take a position on jobs and money vs banning internet gambling would be a gold mine. "Romney says gaming Prohibition worth 3 GM plants"

[TheEngineer]

Okay, cool. I hope we can use the WTO in just that way. That's different from pushing them into a corner by hoping we can make them choose between solitaire and poker just for consistency. Hopefully either a court will see that our way some day or we can get the Wexler bill through.

Also, there's another new, unambiguously "legal" poker site at www.duplicatepoker.com (http://www.duplicatepoker.com) .

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see if we can a god question with jobs and $$$ cost together for Skall to try to ask a NH primary candidate. Like, Dear Mr Obama, how much is the remote gaming ban, totally ineffective and skirted, worth keeping in place in terms of jobs and cost to taxpayers? And try to get a quote from it in the press. If the PPA can do anything press related, getting a candidate to answer that Q to a reporter where they have to take a position on jobs and money vs banning internet gambling would be a gold mine. "Romney says gaming Prohibition worth 3 GM plants"

[/ QUOTE ]


Are there any specific NH companies that likely will be affected by the WTO rulings? All politics are local.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]



Are there any specific NH companies that likely will be affected by the WTO rulings? All politics are local.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any service industry. The fun ones from the EU action are state requlated ones like insurance with throws in the states rights issues.

D$D

[Skallagrim]

Im up for this - there are plenty of NH high-tech companies whose existence depends on intellectual property law.

"Candidate X, the recent WTO ruling aginst the US over our prohibition of internet gambling is predicted to cost the US either hundreds of billions of dollars, or allow Antiguan software and entertainment companies to legally violate US and NH companies' copyrights. Accordingly, just how much taxpayer dollars or American jobs are you willing to part with in order to maintain our ban on internet gambling? Or perhaps you propose leaving the WTO? Or perhaps you may wish to amend US internet gambling laws?"

Improvements on the above are welcome. And please hurry, the "retail politics" is just getting hot here now.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Im up for this - there are plenty of NH high-tech companies whose existence depends on intellectual property law.

"Candidate X, the recent WTO ruling aginst the US over our prohibition of internet gambling is predicted to cost the US either hundreds of billions of dollars, or allow Antiguan software and entertainment companies to legally violate US and NH companies' copyrights. Accordingly, just how much taxpayer dollars or American jobs are you willing to part with in order to maintain our ban on internet gambling? Or perhaps you propose leaving the WTO? Or perhaps you may wish to amend US internet gambling laws?"

Improvements on the above are welcome. And please hurry, the "retail politics" is just getting hot here now.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a real good start. You may want to add in you are interested as a poker player and member of the 1 million strong PPA. I think this is a great idea to force the debate in a way that should be favorable to our cause. I can't wait to hear the responses. Hopefully they will be covered by the media.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Im up for this - there are plenty of NH high-tech companies whose existence depends on intellectual property law.

"Candidate X, the recent WTO ruling aginst the US over our prohibition of internet gambling is predicted to cost the US either hundreds of billions of dollars, or allow Antiguan software and entertainment companies to legally violate US and NH companies' copyrights. Accordingly, just how much taxpayer dollars or American jobs are you willing to part with in order to maintain our ban on internet gambling? Or perhaps you propose leaving the WTO? Or perhaps you may wish to amend US internet gambling laws?"

Improvements on the above are welcome. And please hurry, the "retail politics" is just getting hot here now.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidate x, I understand your desire to protect _______ (chilren is always good) from the possible evils of unrestricted on-line gambling. Your recent vote for the UIGEA seems to reflect that desire for common good.

But since the "on-line gambling ban" Congress crafted, has not stopped on-line gambling, in fact pushed US players further into the hands of unregulated unknown off shore operators.

Also the recent WTO case has the potential to cost NH workers XXX job, and the entire country $XXX, and at the same time make the USTR look like a fool.

Would not a sensible regulatory scheme similar those enacted by countries like New Zealand and South Africa, that provide for underaged protection, safe and secure money transfers, help for problem gamblers, and the proper collection of the estimated $3.5 billion unreported and uncollected US taxes, perhaps cause you to give this issue a second look.

If not why not?


Or something like this, I'm sure it can be cleaned up and made pithier. The idea is hook them to their stance and defeate whatever reason they used for it.

Crushing.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

The Dems, especially Hillary, get more money from Hollywood, the music industry and other entertainers than from any group that I can recall; except maybe trial lawyers (sorry Skall.) The Dems will be very motivated to avoid Antiqua legally reproducing and selling copies of new movies and songs; more than Bush and the FOF types who hate Hollywood.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
Im up for this - there are plenty of NH high-tech companies whose existence depends on intellectual property law.

"Candidate X, the recent WTO ruling aginst the US over our prohibition of internet gambling is predicted to cost the US either hundreds of billions of dollars, or allow Antiguan software and entertainment companies to legally violate US and NH companies' copyrights. Accordingly, just how much taxpayer dollars or American jobs are you willing to part with in order to maintain our ban on internet gambling? Or perhaps you propose leaving the WTO? Or perhaps you may wish to amend US internet gambling laws?"

Improvements on the above are welcome. And please hurry, the "retail politics" is just getting hot here now.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

As president, will you negotiate with Antigua to end the trade sanctions against the US, over the internet gaming ban, that will cost countless American jobs and billions of dollars, or will you continue the Bush administration’s hard line and protect the monopoly our domestic internet gambling industries enjoy, no matter the cost in American jobs and taxpayer money?

Advice:
I would stay away from pointing out that you’re a poker player. Don’t lie, but don’t offer that information up unless you have to. In political terms, a person concerned about losing their job or concerned that a friend or family member might lose their job, is infinitely more powerful than someone who wants to play poker at home. "it’s the economy stupid."

Also have a short question ready just in case you are pressed for time: As president, will you negotiate with Antigua to end the trade sanctions against the US that will cost countless American jobs and billions of dollars?


One more thing: thanks and good luck.

[TheEngineer]

Interesting Dick Armey op-ed:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/16/INDVS3NC6.DTL

Microsoft vs. Europe - shaping the global marketplace
Dick Armey

Sunday, September 16, 2007

On Monday, the European Court of First Instance is widely expected to rule against Microsoft - to what extent is open to debate - in the ongoing battle between the softwaremaker and the European Commission. For Microsoft, which leads the operating system market, the costs are clear: It will almost certainly see fines, and restrictions are likely to be placed on its business practices.

Less obvious are the adverse implications for consumers and American firms doing business in the global marketplace....

[Uglyowl]

Debate is still going strong.... Some interesting comments.

[Legislurker]

I can't find the comment section.

[Merkle]

My proposed question:

In view of the recent ruling by the WTO that the US is in violation of trade restrictions pertaining to online gaming and the penalty will be in the billions of dollars including trade and IP concessions to several foreign countries, such as Antiqua, the EU and Japan to name a few.

We can all appreciate the need for protecting children from online gaming, and obviously the US believes this can be done with regulation as demonstrated by allowing legal online gambling sites for the purchase of lottery tickets and the opportunity to bet on horse racing.

Do you agree the US citizens should pay the billions of dollars in penalties, and the countless numbers of lost jobs and revenue due to intellectual property rights concessions in an effort to keep foreign competitors from our online gaming market?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Debate is still going strong.... Some interesting comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I got my Business Week and Newsweek article messed up. Sorry for wasting your time.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Debate is still going strong.... Some interesting comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I got my Business Week and Newsweek article messed up. Sorry for wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least its hilarious when someone suggests my time has value.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cato is pretty strongly Libertarian, so grains of salt and all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but she works for the free trade part. Free trade is better than restricted trade. Unilaterally lowering your trade barriers is better than not. So, to Cato, the US having to lower trade barriers to foreign countries, even if the other countries don't, is good in their eyes. The personal freedom argument is trumped(I think) in their eyes by the economic well-being of cheaper foreign goods. Thats the read Ive gotten off of Cato.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, Cato is on our side. Cato testimony (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tb052198.html)

Also, Cato is basically for personal freedoms, as most Libertarians are. So the free trade and the personal freedoms work together. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cato is pretty strongly Libertarian, so grains of salt and all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but she works for the free trade part. Free trade is better than restricted trade. Unilaterally lowering your trade barriers is better than not. So, to Cato, the US having to lower trade barriers to foreign countries, even if the other countries don't, is good in their eyes. The personal freedom argument is trumped(I think) in their eyes by the economic well-being of cheaper foreign goods. Thats the read Ive gotten off of Cato.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, Cato is on our side. Cato testimony (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tb052198.html)

Also, Cato is basically for personal freedoms, as most Libertarians are. So the free trade and the personal freedoms work together. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The genral free trade issue has always had problems with the jobs issue. While many of us haven't faced it but most of our parents have, with things like textiles and steel. Free trade has given up cheaper clothes and cheaper steel for all manner of products but laid waste to entire industries and destroyed many communities in the minds of some.

As far as the issue of on-line poker or even the broader on-line gaming issue the free trade issue in light of the WTO, GATT and EU actions actually protects US jobs and industries. Because any deal on on-line poker and or on-line gaming protects existing US jobs and industries, as well as has the potential of creating new ones. The number of jobs in the Federal Government alone might be larger under any regulatory matrix than the actual jobs for the total on-line poker industy but a jobs saved and jobs created add up to more than those potentially lost to a major trade dispute.


D$D