Link to Antigua and Barbuda court win over US

[LeDan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/...bling_wto_dc_2

[LeDan]

A large portion of the world including Great Britain is tolerant to interent gambling. This has carried over to the world's high courts. The US will eventually have no other recourse but to regulate online gambling. At least that's how I see it.

From the article:

At issue is an April 2005 World Trade Organization ruling against U.S. prohibitions on online horse race betting. Since then, the U.S. Congress has passed additional legislation to ban betting over the Internet.

Gretchen Hamel, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, confirmed press reports that a WTO panel "did not agree with the United States that we had taken the necessary steps to comply" with that ruling.

^ WTO has the US in a legal bind. Positive developments. To be continued...

[JPFisher55]

"A narrow issue of federal law" Yeah, the Wire Act and related statutes violate Gatt. Sure the DOJ could comply without any legislation. Just dismiss its cases against Mr. Carruther and the Neteller founders and stop enforcing the Wire Act against the online gambling industry.
I wish that the trade representative from Antiqua had been quoted. I look forward to reading the report. This makes the DOJ intimidation war more difficult.

[I_C_ALL]

I disagree. I don't think the powers that be here really care. I remember hearing that if the USA doesn't comply, it gives the affected countries(Antigua and Barbuda) the right to disregard USA international rules(or something like that) The ramification was a circumvention(is that a word?) of copyright laws. The online companies could then purchase "new" hardware and make copies of windows, music, dvd's and sell those online.

I don't know if the above scenario is accurate, but if so, could be interesting. At best, I see this as long term pressure if it comes into play at all. I could be wrong, but if you're in the US, I'd say it would be more prudent to either seek out B&M alternatives, move or something else.

[ekdikeo]

The U.S. would be all over promoting what was said, if it was actually favorable, instead of just saying "it was favorable".

[Zele]

Looks like pretty good news (or as good as news gets these days). I wish Jay Cohen still posted here.

Forgive me for this pessimistic hypothetical, but wouldn't it be ironic if, after the Republican Congress passed UIGEA, the Democratic Congress' hostility to the WTO kept it in force?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me for this pessimistic hypothetical, but wouldn't it be ironic if, after the Republican Congress passed UIGEA, the Democratic Congress' hostility to the WTO kept it in force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic would not be the right word [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Def. good news tho [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ASD99]

thanks for the link...i have read this over twice quite quickly but still can't decide really what this means...obviously this is a good thing for us but just how good because it sure doesn't seem like the US gov has complied in the past so why now?

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
"The panel report clarifies that compliance does not necessarily require new legislation, but could instead involve other steps, such as administrative or judicial action,"

[/ QUOTE ]


What could this mean?

[Reject]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The panel report clarifies that compliance does not necessarily require new legislation, but could instead involve other steps, such as administrative or judicial action,"

[/ QUOTE ]


What could this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by other steps they mean sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending like they didn't hear anything.