EU joins Antigua, Seeks Trade Compensations

[Legislurker]

My fear is now that Bush knows he is seriously a lame duck, he may just stall this out till he is gone.
If I understand right, only Antigua can start applying sanctions after the dispute committee's next meeting(this week i think). How painful those will be will determine a lot of speed. The negotiating phase with other claimant's will be a longer process. What would satisfy a 2p2 poker pro, and what Antigua wants are very differnet thing. We just want Party, neteller, and bwin back, Antigua wants to offer bookmaking and casinos as well. And, the Bush administration may just say [censored] it, and give compensation to every claimant. Honestly, no one knows what is going to happen now.

[Glory]

This will eventually be dealt with in the same way US beef is banned from the EU because its injected full of hormones.

The WTO ruled against the EU, and the EU pays a few hundred million euros (don't know the exact figure) each year to continue their ban on US beef imports to the EU. The EU are probably looking to get some fines flowing the other way!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[oldbookguy]

If all will note: No legislation currently introduced allows sports betting (Except the Frank Bill and then there is the OPT OUT for sports leagues and you know what will happen there).

No, sorry, the WTO ruling mentions over and over (read it) that sports is excluded under the agreement made by the U.S.
In mentioning the 1961 Wire act it is using the Horse Wagering exception to this as an EXAMPLE that the U.S. does allow internet INTERSTATE wagering thus 'other gambing services (execpt sporting)' should be allowed and treated no differently.

Remember here as well it is Gonzales (and Bush Administration) position that the Horse Racing exemption is illegal and even that too is against the law.

This also helps clarify WHY the Bush Administration has the stance that the 1961 Wire Act includes ALL betting, and the U.S. is in compliance with the WTO ruling.

No one buys that position. Note that even the UIGEA states it does not amend or change any law.

A federal court and a federal court of appeals ruled that the 1961 Wire Act covers ONLY sports wagering, the Bush administration (typical) says the courts are wrong.
Peter King (R. N.Y.) states "we never intended to ban poker" in his decision to back the Frank Bill even though he was a mojor supporter of the UIGEA.

Rep. Bachaus (R. Al.) in the Frank Bill hearing (a major UIGEA supporter) states "the UIGEA only effects that which was already illegal".

There are many 'OUTS' that allow the U.S. to comply with the WTO and satisgy almost everone (except sports bettors, sorry).

Simply treating poker as the 'SKILL' games are treated and the matter really can go away, no claims to pay.

obg



[ QUOTE ]
This is encouraging.

I have the feeling that others are correct and the Bush adm would like to tell the EU what to do. BUT, might it be possible for our compliance to make its way into a law of otherwise "must pass" legislation that Bush will sign into law (similar to what Frist did with the port security thingie)? Might this head off a confrontation, and be made possible by the increased leverage EU bitching will bring? Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jay Cohen]

OK, you know what you are talking about.

The Antigua lawyers for the WTO have interpreted the decision wrong. The lawyers for the USTR have not picked up on this.

Great catch.

[oldbookguy]

Actually I think the Bush Admin is well aware of this thus the pressure being put on Gonzales & Paulson by Brownback and Kyl wanting strict rules.
A lot of lobbying is being done behind the scene delaying the UIGEA regulations.
For the UIGEA Regulations to take effect on July 11 (270 days from signing the UIGEA) they would have needed to have been posted 30-60 days in advance for a 'public comment' period. They can be posted on July 11 but the comment period starts when posted so enforcement starting that day is ambigious.

WHAT Antigua and the WTO missed was more important than Horse Wagering is the 'SKILL' wagering allowed in the U.S. and only limited in 14 states (thus the outs for poker).

See worldwinner.com as an example. This site is also an affiliate of AOL Games and YAHOO! Games, is based in the U.S. (Newton, Mass.) and is 53% owned my a large media company in the U.S.

See my post 30 MILLION Skill Players.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
OK, you know what you are talking about.

The Antigua lawyers for the WTO have interpreted the decision wrong. The lawyers for the USTR have not picked up on this.

Great catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

bookguy,

Note first that in the past I have disagreed with Jay's agenda of lumping poker in with sports betting, as I don't believe that is what is in the best interests of poker players, nor do I care if we are in compliance with the WTO as long as poker is given special consideration (though I'm not opposed to legalization of sports betting and think it will be easier to get it legalized once poker is).

Also I appreciate the difference you are noting between what is the position that the administration apparently maintains, contrary to established legal decisions wrt the Wire Act and horse racing exemptions, and the fact that it is the actual practice as a result of those legal decisions that the WTO uses to determine its rulings, rather than the contrary intepretations of the current administration.

Nonetheless in the following quote from your post above:

[ QUOTE ]
No, sorry, the WTO ruling mentions over and over (read it) that sports is excluded under the agreement made by the U.S.
In mentioning the 1961 Wire act it is using the Horse Wagering exception to this as an EXAMPLE that the U.S. does allow internet INTERSTATE wagering thus 'other gambing services (execpt sporting)' should be allowed and treated no differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are engaging in a redefinition of commonly accepted terms by seeking not to include horse race wagering as a subcase of sports wagering overall, but rather as a separate form of wagering. And you haven't unless I have missed it, shown that the WTO similarly accepts such a definition you are asserting, i.e. that horse racing is not a sport similar to others, and thus wagering on it is not the same as wagering on baseball.

And if indeed horse race wagering is as I and Jay and most others believe, merely a subset of all other sports betting, then it too would have been excepted under your interpretation that the WTO has in fact allowed sports betting to be excluded, thus providing *NO* case for asserting that poker should be legalized in order to comply with WTO rulings.

[Jay Cohen]

The issue of whether or not sports was included in the commitments was well vetted before two WTO panels. The US commitments include all remote gaming whether it is skill, luck, or anything else. It doesn't matter.

The fact that Frank's bill gives sports an opt out has nothing to do with the WTO. Frank's bill, with or without the sports opt out is not WTO compliant.

Yes, I know some poker players don't like being lumped with sports players. But, if it wasn't for the sportsbooks, there would have been no WTO case to lean on right now.

Also, kudos to Antigua for taking a stand when so many naysayers said it couldn't be done. The finish line is in sight.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue of whether or not sports was included in the commitments was well vetted before two WTO panels. The US commitments include all remote gaming whether it is skill, luck, or anything else. It doesn't matter.

The fact that Frank's bill gives sports an opt out has nothing to do with the WTO. Frank's bill, with or without the sports opt out is not WTO compliant.

Yes, I know some poker players don't like being lumped with sports players. But, if it wasn't for the sportsbooks, there would have been no WTO case to lean on right now.

Also, kudos to Antigua for taking a stand when so many naysayers said it couldn't be done. The finish line is in sight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

To be frank, Frank's bill has a lot to do with this. Without the successful 6/8 hearing that proved to Congress that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated (our first congressional victory) and without the hard work and dedication of all pro-Internet gaming people who rallied around IGREA, be they pro-sports or pro-poker or pro-anything, the Antigua case would have no chance of opening up the U.S. Internet gaming market. After all, the last House vote was 317-93 in favor of a ban.

Rather, this case, combined with the show of support of the American people has created an excellent opportunity for us, but it's one we cannot win if we don't work the political end of it. As I mentioned earlier, I phoned my congressman and both senators this morning. We ALL need to do this. Jay and Antigua have won some hard-fought battle, but it's up to Americans like us to secure the victory.

Jay -- thanks again for your hard work. We'll try to do our part to turn this into a lasting victory.

[JPFisher55]

Jay, I thank you for your courage and persistence. The only point that I hope is true is that "The finish line is in sight." Somehow, I doubt this is true. I think that the Bush administration will seek to delay the matter until its end.
Even if Antiqua obtains relief from the intellectual property rights laws, then will that make a big difference? Is Antiqua really prepared to be a haven for copyright pirates?
The litigation filed by the iMEGA is more likely to provide faster relief. Has Antigua, through its attorneys, considered assistance to the iMEGA, by donation or by filing supporting legal memoranda?

[Jay Cohen]

I am going to reserve my comments on the IMEGA suit.

The Intellectual Property interests will bring pressure. They really don't want this, even if it was for a $1, because of the precedent it would set.

Agriculture will bring pressure in response to the EU claim. You think local farmers or Archer Daniels is going to like to hear they now have an extra tariff on US grain brought into the EU because the US won't come to a bilateral settlement with Antigua? It's a very competitive market for food in the EU and a gew percentage points can really hurt their sales.

But yes, they are prepared.