WTO rules against US in Antigua's case

[iponnet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16830252/

its a start...

[ginko]

No one seems to think this will have any effect, but I do.

[JPFisher55]

It will have an effect but will take time. The WTO process itself may take another year before it can pressure the WTO. However, this ruling is part of a motion to dismiss by Mr. David Carruthers. He is represented by the best criminal defense attorney in St. Louis where I live.
I am sure that this WTO ruling will be part of the defense by the two Neteller founders. Thus, it will hinder the DOJ's efforts in court and cooperation abroad.

[MikeyPatriot]

"The EU has previously said that it was an "interested party" in the case."

I think this is a very interesting tidbit that is hidden at the bottom of the article.

[I Man]

I totally agree. Come on EU. Get in the game. This could be a big breakthrough.

[Checkov]

Tip of the iceburg.

[blutarski]

We've ignored trade complaints by Canada and the EU before. I don't put much stock in this. The prevailing philosophy in the US government is that international trade agreements are fine in principle, but can be ignored when they're inconvenient.

Seriously, do you think the EU is going to take this to the wall for Antigua?

I hope I'm wrong, but...

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
We've ignored trade complaints by Canada and the EU before. I don't put much stock in this. The prevailing philosophy in the US government is that international trade agreements are fine in principle, but can be ignored when they're inconvenient.

Seriously, do you think the EU is going to take this to the wall for Antigua?

I hope I'm wrong, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the EU make take this to wall for the gambling companies who stand to make a lot of money from the U.S. market. I hope so anyway.

[BluffTHIS!]

I would like to ask if anyone has a greater degree of knowledge regarding how the US will likely handle this ruling. In the link above, the office of the US Trade Representive at the WTO is quoted, and who says that an administrative change might be all that is needed to comply, and not necessarily a legislative one. But which agencies actually will be involved in framing a US response? I would presume beside the trade rep's office, the Commerce Dept and the DoJ. Can anyone here provide an knowledgeable response as to whether this is so?

Also it seems the US it seems is trying to assert that the only thing the WTO is holding them in non-compliance with, is regarding horse race betting, when from what I have read in the past, the WTO isn't allowing the US to separate that form of gamling out fron all online gambling. Thus the US merely allowing foreign sites to take bets on US or foreign horse racing wouldn't seem to be in full compliance. Anyone with a better understanding of whether that is so or not?


Note I am not discussing whether Antigua can effectively enact retaliatory sanctions if the US doesn't comply, which seems as unlikely as it is likely that the US will continue trying to delay and spin the issue so as to require no legislative changes.

[Jooka]

I think its funny that people think a little island in the atlantic will get the US to change its prospective because the WTO says so. Its like seeing a chiwawa trying to bully a pit bull.