Antigua WTO Press Release-US action contrary to purpose of GATS

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for the sake of argument, suppose that everyone in the WTO lines up behind Antigua and makes this an issue that they will take as far as they can. Then what happens? Does the US not buy all of their exports?

I don't see much leverage from the WTO as it is typically the domestic industry that is the aggrieved against an exporting country. In the gambling case, there are no domestic competitors. Do I understand this or am I missing something crucial?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, we import more than we export, but there is a reason for that. Other countries may get our money when they export stuff to us, but we get cheap stuff in return. We like cheap stuff. The price of gas already threatens to kick our economy in the behind. It would be hard for us to just stop importing from countries and either start doing without or paying more for the same stuff elsewhere.People simply are not going to tolerate much more just to appease Kyl and his merry band of religious zealots. At least I hope not

[counthomer]

Jay, I am utterly perplexed at your position on this. I'm sure that you know more about what is happening behind the scenes than most of the 2+2ers, but I can't comprehend your angle on this.

All this bluster about us changing GATS and the Antiguans becoming the worlds largest purveyor of cheap IP is nonsense. It is quite obviously just us (the US) and the Antiguans making political moves to pressurise the other side, there is no substance in it.

I can't believe that people think that they are suddenly going to get a copy of 'Vista Antigua', or that we can unilateraly changes the rules of international trade when we dislike the result. The US will never change it's GATS agreements in this manner - as everybody rightly points out, it has too much to lose in other areas as a result.

Similarly, the Antiguans will never be given carte blanche to override IP while there is even a hint of negotiation or progress from the US side. There is no way the WTO wants a confrontation where the US could really decide to withdraw or actually carry out their threat to change the rules - that would be the end of the WTO, and as everyone knows, all organisations are self serving. This ability of the US to stall any sanctions by being able to make token progress is the killer for Antigua, as the UIGEA is right around the corner.

If you remove all the froth and manouvering, it is utterly simple. At some point the US must (and will) come into line with the ruling. This will take many months if not years - as all these things do. Coming into line will either mean no remote gaming (unlikely, but not a scenario Antigua wants at any cost) or all remote gambling. The latter is the key, as if you are a US official, do you want:

a) Antigua to be the gateway to the US market and make all the money.
b) Huge domestic tax revenues.

Obviously it is the latter. This can be achieved by licencing and giving the Harrahs of this world an advantage. I'm sure Jay et al will be outraged at this, but this is exactly how everything ends up. It may even end up back at the WTO for another few years of arguing (and time is not something Antigua has). Interestingly, the recent proposals by Frank are all about licencing - which is why Jay was against them.

So lets consider the Antiguan angle. They are sitting there, with their industry suffering, and the axe hanging over them in the form of the UIGEA. If they can't get a solution soon there wont be much of an industry left for them to protect - they certainly can't wait years while we stall the process, the UIGEA kicks in and the (US) domestic providers appear.

Furthermore, Antigua really doesn't want to force a decision out of the US, as it knows that either no remote gambling or a (semi) open US market is potentially devastating for it. This is why IP sanctions are a no go - as it would instantly force a US decision (which Antigua really doesn't want).

Hopefully the Antiguans are wise enough to realise that the US will keep throwing little scraps their way, negotiating, and making pointless threats to keep the WTO at bay until Antigua has lost the war. Therefore this is, and always has been, a bit of long term busted flush for Antigua. The only result I can see for them is a monster compensation pay day. That is great for them from my view, as there is no guarantee they could sustain a gaming industry in the medium term, and the WTO will never be able to take the real steps necessary to help them in the time required.

The presence of the other big countries is probably harmful to the Antiguans cause as it allows the process to be further delayed while the negotiations continue. The other countries have no interest in gaming - they just see leverage. Interestingly the greater that leverage becomes, the worse it is for the Antiguans as it forces the US closer to a decision.

There is a simple equilibrium here, and thats why I can't see Jay's angle. As a smart person, surely you can't believe the US will sit back and give Antigua the freedom of the market?

I can see only two reasons for your position, Jay. I know your presence on this board is essentially a marketing tool, but I hope you will answer these questions:

1) Have you got some deal with the Antiguan government for them to cut you in on any IP or compensation deal? If not, is there not a scenario where Antigua gets a result but you don't?

2) Is this your only life raft?

If it is the latter, I hope not - I have a great deal of time for WSEX and your cause, but I also know that other providers are 75% down the path to implementing their UIGEA solutions. If you aren't in the same position I would suggest you open up your chequebook as otherwise this whole argument will be moot.

[Skallagrim]

While its true being an obvious hypocrite has not stopped the Bush administration from doing it what it wants (so far), eventually the time will come when the piper must be paid, one way or the other. Withdrawing entirely from the WTO is NOT a viable option for the US, nor is ignoring its rulings, and Antigua and their allies know that. Hence the US will have to make concessions of some form eventually ... even Bush will if his rich cronies/supporters tell him he has to.

But what those concessions will be, aye there's the rub.

And it could take a long time too.

[Jay Cohen]

Well, when Antigua goes to seek their remedy for the current matter, which is still live, and the withdrawal of the commitment, if the US is allowed to do it, it will invariably end up before a WTO arbitration panel. It won't matter what the US wants, it will be up to the panel to decide. FYI- there is no appeal from a remedy panel, it is final.

I expect any panel, whether in the remedy phase or the withdrawal of the commitment phase, to be VERY sympathetic to Antigua. I don't think the jurists who sit on these cases really appreciate what the US is doing in this case. Remember, nobody has ever withdrawn commitments as a remedy to an adverse decision. It's not clear that they will allow it here.

IP has been awarded once before. When it happened, the case was quickly settled.

Ultimately the US will have to decide whether they want to be part of the WTO or not. They have a lot more to lose if they leave.

I am not a marketing tool for anybody. If you consider this marketing, you have a funny idea of marketing. I'm just educating peopple and fighting for the same thing I have been fighting for for the last 10 years.

[counthomer]

Jay, you are fighting for your personal gain. You choose to side yourself with the Antiguans as your goals are (somewhat) mutually aligned. If the Antiguans managed to negotiate a carve out for sports betting for themselves and left poker to rot you would rarely be seen on these boards again.

Either way, you made statements without answering any of my questions, or countering any of my points. I have no doubt that the process is still ongoing, but as I pointed out, Antigua has no benefit in wielding the ultimate sanction (IP freedom) as it would merely result in a losing situation for them when the we come into line with the ruling to our benefit.

The WTO is therefore no solution to the UIGEA in the short term, and probably practically irrelevant in the long term (when the US will legalise gaming anyway).

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a one time buy out is what Antigua is looking for. Online gambling is a long-term high-profit industry for them that they would be permanently forfeiting with an agreement like that. Now they have the option of starting a new industry of selling Eminem CDs and Shrek 3 DVDs for $1. Printing DVDs is cheaper than running a server-farm for poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI Antigua-Tunes.com and wto-tunes.com are available, a-tunes.com is taken.

[TheEngineer]

Jay,

Are you expecting Jon Kyl and the rest of Congress to repeal the Wire Act (and Bush to sign it) because the WTO said to? I'm just trying to understand the plan. If so, shouldn't we be actively doing something to generate this political climate change? Shouldn't WSEX be emailing their U.S. members to write to Congress, the USTR, and anyone else who influences this?

[Nortonesque]

[ QUOTE ]

IP has been awarded once before. When it happened, the case was quickly settled.


[/ QUOTE ]
Jay, do you happen to know what case that was? I'm wondering if the country involved was allowed to ignore IP for their own use or if they were allowed to distribute IP to others.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

Are you expecting Jon Kyl and the rest of Congress to repeal the Wire Act (and Bush to sign it) because the WTO said to? I'm just trying to understand the plan. If so, shouldn't we be actively doing something to generate this political climate change? Shouldn't WSEX be emailing their U.S. members to write to Congress, the USTR, and anyone else who influences this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have to sit tight on this one. I don't feel it is in our (the poker community) best interests to end up in a situation where the US is forced to choose between no gaming at all and free access.

With the current administration, the people who put us in this current situation could well see this as the opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin, and you also have the question of which side the big US gaming giants will come down on. Given the opportunity to see the existing market truly obliterated, they may play a long game and take a view that they are better off waiting for legalisation in the future. We could end up in another battle against the anti-gaming lobby, and that is not a battle we have had much success in.

As I said before, the WTO is no silver bullet for anyone involved, and has the potential to turn out good or bad for all the players.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

Are you expecting Jon Kyl and the rest of Congress to repeal the Wire Act (and Bush to sign it) because the WTO said to? I'm just trying to understand the plan. If so, shouldn't we be actively doing something to generate this political climate change? Shouldn't WSEX be emailing their U.S. members to write to Congress, the USTR, and anyone else who influences this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have to sit tight on this one. I don't feel it is in our (the poker community) best interests to end up in a situation where the US is forced to choose between no gaming at all and free access.

With the current administration, the people who put us in this current situation could well see this as the opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin, and you also have the question of which side the big US gaming giants will come down on. Given the opportunity to see the existing market truly obliterated, they may play a long game and take a view that they are better off waiting for legalisation in the future. We could end up in another battle against the anti-gaming lobby, and that is not a battle we have had much success in.

As I said before, the WTO is no silver bullet for anyone involved, and has the potential to turn out good or bad for all the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this ruling may be bad for us for the reasons you stated. I'm not sure why us writing would be bad, though. How would us opposing a total ban hurt us?