Antigua WTO Press Release-US action contrary to purpose of GATS - Page 4

Skallagrim · #31 05-25-2007, 06:27 PM

counthomer wrote: " We could end up in another battle against the anti-gaming lobby, and that is not a battle we have had much success in."

This battle is inevitable, and we had better be prepared for it (unlike last time).

But there is no reason to rush into this battle either. The anti-gambling crusaders have already hit their high point; the PPA grows everyday, however, as do our allies. Time, I think, is on our side.

Also, the only republican who has any crossover appeal is Guiliani, no lover of gambling for sure, but no rabid persecutor either. But most likely, thanks to the biggest example of an administration's, and by extension, a party's incompetence in US history (Iraq) there is little chance of a republican president next time around (unless the Dems nominate Hillary).

The WTO always takes a long time to do anything, if I were Jay Cohen and/or Antigua, while I would continue the process and seek out more allies, I wouldnt push things to a final resolution for about, oh, 18 months. By then we should be in the position to turn things to our side's advantage.

counthomer · #32 05-25-2007, 06:31 PM

I think the problem with bringing any element of the WTO issue into the argument is that as long as people like Jay don't get the dream scenario they need, there will always be demands for IP resolutions etc. This in turn forces the situation into an all or nothing scenario, which I outlined above as being bad.

I think we are best off following your lead, pushing for US legislation. As I stated in an earlier thread, I have been right behind you on your efforts, and I think that is part of the way forward...

counthomer · #33 05-25-2007, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO always takes a long time to do anything, if I were Jay Cohen and/or Antigua, while I would continue the process and seek out more allies, I wouldnt push things to a final resolution for about, oh, 18 months. By then we should be in the position to turn things to our side's advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is our problem. If the UIGEA regs are a big nail in the coffin, then Antigua has no choice but to try and push for a swift resolution. They won't have an industry in 18 months if the regs hit hard in June.

We therefore (potentially) end up in a bad situation where even a total ban is possible.

TheEngineer · #34 05-25-2007, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with bringing any element of the WTO issue into the argument is that as long as people like Jay don't get the dream scenario they need, there will always be demands for IP resolutions etc. This in turn forces the situation into an all or nothing scenario, which I outlined above as being bad.

I think we are best off following your lead, pushing for US legislation. As I stated in an earlier thread, I have been right behind you on your efforts, and I think that is part of the way forward...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm CERTAINLY not suggesting we abandon support for IGREA in favor of hoping somehow the U.S. will cave to the WTO. After all, there's no history of the U.S. bending to the will of any international body, and there's little reason to imagine this will be the first. However, we can use this as added ammo in our arsenal. I have in some of my pro-IGREA letters.

My original question was really to Jay. It wasn't rhetorical. I'm really curious to know how he sees this progressing, so we can assist if possible.

counthomer · #35 05-25-2007, 07:01 PM

I'm still waiting for Jay to explain how he benefits from the situation.

Given that IP sanctions will never practically be used, I can't see how he believes that the real worst case scenario for the US (free access for all companies with no domestic providers of note) is a credible outcome..

JPFisher55 · #36 05-25-2007, 07:22 PM

It seems to me that if Jay wins, us online poker players win. I know that the opposite is not necessarily true. However, I think that Jay's and Antiqua's efforts help our cause. Not just in Congress and politics, but potentially in court.

*TT* · #37 05-25-2007, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What must get lost in the shuffle, though, is the simple fact that the US has a large, sanctioned domestic industry. If it was seeking to withdraw its commitment due to a strong anti-gambling culture, this would be understandable. However, this is certainly not the case here: it is seeking to withdraw this commitment simply to erect a trade barrier to foreign competition in order to protect and enhance its own, flourishing domestic gambling and betting industry," he added.

[/ QUOTE ]

WPT Poker - relaunching soon, only accepting foreign bets

MGM - Planning a relaunch as well, foreign facing only

Also I was recently approached by a famous gentleman who will go unnamed, who will be launching a foreign facing poker room within the year. I was asked to work with him on this project.

There are many more examples of legally operating gambling US enterprises which accept bets from foreign entities only. Additionally horse betting and lotteries occur across and within state lines via wire.

Jay - I like your lawyer's stance... it highlights US trade protectionism at its worst.

JPFisher55 · #38 05-25-2007, 07:43 PM

I read on compatiblepoker.com that Antiqua has asked the WTO for permission to ignore IP protections. Jay said that Antiqua was considering this option, but can anyone confirm that they took this action?

Jay Cohen · #39 05-25-2007, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for Jay to explain how he benefits from the situation.

Given that IP sanctions will never practically be used, I can't see how he believes that the real worst case scenario for the US (free access for all companies with no domestic providers of note) is a credible outcome..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your opinion. I think IP sanctions will be used if push comes to shove. IP interests will be ringing their Congressmen and women off the hook. I doubt the US will ever ban all remote gaming, the horse lobby alone is too strong.

Engineer, I don't want to spell out in a public forum how I think things can get done, but I do think they can.

TT, we agree. Mark nailed it on the head. Have any of you seen the latest press release from the NTRA? It basically brags about how they think their industry is now protected from foreign competition.

TheEngineer · #40 05-25-2007, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt the US will ever ban all remote gaming, the horse lobby alone is too strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have data indicating that the horse lobby is stronger than the anti-gambling crowd plus the NFL, such that Kyl and Co. would vote to open up the U.S. to unregulated, wide-open Internet gambling?

I hope you're right.

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I don't want to spell out in a public forum how I think things can get done, but I do think they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. PM me if you can think of anything we can help with. Good luck.