Excellent WTO article/interview for anyone interested in the case

[Jay Cohen]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07...ua_wto_mendel/

The Register » Management » Law » Antigua attorney speaks out on landmark WTO case

DOJ, USTR keep heads in sand

With the recent news that the Conference of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has joined the EU, Japan, and India in supporting tiny Antigua in its WTO case against the US regarding the cross-border provision of gambling services, we thought the time was right to finish our interview with Mark Mendel, lead counsel for Antigua in this landmark trade case, that we began back at GIGSE in Montreal.

Mark, you've been Antigua's counsel on this case for a while now, and I thought maybe you could give us a little history of the case for our readers who might not be familiar with it.

Antigua brought this case in 2003, primarily as a result of increasing efforts of the United States Department of Justice to prevent Antiguan companies from providing remote gambling and betting and services to consumers in the United States. We had evaluated the legal issues and determined that under the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (the "GATS"), the United States had made an unrestricted commitment to allow the cross-border trade in gambling and betting services from other WTO members, such as Antigua. Thus, the actions by the DOJ to stop the industry amounted to a violation of an international treaty......................

(Click on link to read the balance)

[Legislurker]

Best article so far. So the anti-gambling crowd at the DOJ are career desk-jockeys, and not ChristaNazi political appointees? And, from the first sentence, has CARICOM signed up for compensation? Or each country individually? Or just writing the USTR nasty letters and cheering from the sidelines?
As for dates, is September the month to watch for news, or is that when negotiation might actually start? I'm going to
start some letter to the editor writing this afternoon, and would like to be able to give them some dates to watch for.

[Hock_]

Interesting. I've litigated many cases against the DOJ and it's amazing how often the position of the "United States" is really just the preference or whim of some individual with day-to-day responsibility for the particular case. If the case is big enough, usually it's possible to elevate the issue to someone with more perspective/sense. I guess the problem here is that, given the current administration, the higher you go the wackier the person you have to deal with.

What a complete goat [censored].

[oldbookguy]

Very good story.

The following comment was left at the U.K. Register:

Absurd! The U.S.T.R. / DoJ position that interstate wagering is not allowed in the U.S.

1. Barrack Obama ran a ‘lottery’ fund-raiser; all who donated to his campaign during a specified period were entered into a contest (4 winners) to have dinner with him. There was no free entry, ONLY by paying a donation could you enter.
2. Deal or No Deal, NBC. Here I can pay a .99 text message fee per selection to select a suitcase that may / may not contain $10,000.00. I can enter up to 10 times per show. NOTE: There is a free option and a pay option.

Are these a stretch, yes? Are these examples of INTERSTATE REMOTE GAMBLING?

YES in any sense of the word. After all, gambling is the risking of something of value to win a prize / cash. Both of these examples meet those criteria.

These are but two examples. There are many more, one needs only to look.

[schwza]

thanks for the article. i had never heard this before:

[ QUOTE ]
This is particularly more interesting given that until 1998, the official DOJ position was completely different. The official DOJ spokesman said on many occasions in the mid- to late-1990s that United States laws did not cover this kind of gambling service offered from and under the sanction of government in foreign countries. In fact, as we told the WTO as late as 1997, the United States government was affirmatively working with the Antiguan government on ways to ensure the fairness of gaming services and protection of American consumers. For some reason, that all changed in 1998 and this gambling crowd at DOJ has been very successful at establishing the myth of America having "had strong laws against this activity" since forever. As regards licenced, regulated services from foreign countries, the current United States policy is less than ten years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

Great article!

Unfortunately it seems the past few Presidents have tried to extend and broaden their powers and no one is fighting back, Clinton some and now Bush in the past couple years has taken it to a new level.

Hopefully the WTO will take on this administration, because certainly Congress won't for anything.

[catlover]

Nice article.

Just one comment -- the article mentions copying Microsoft products. That might pose a technical problem because of the way Microsoft's product activation works. You need an activation code to use the product -- and I doubt Microsoft will be too keen on sharing those with Antigua.

I hope you kick some US ass in the continuing legal battles.

[Grasshopp3r]

I thought about the Microsoft activation key problem. Then it dawned on me that Microsoft would also be avoiding paying anyone else for the use of other IP from Antigua.

[crashjr]

What do they mean interstate remote wagering is not allowed in the US?? There are OTB internet sites for betting on horses. These are sanctioned and supported by, for instance, the state of California. This Cal Expo page has a link to this page on harness racing at Cal Expo (state fair grounds) which has affiliate links to http://www.tvg.com/ and http://www.youbet.com both of which are internet based OTB sites that solicit bets on horse races around the country.

The air of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

[Neurotoxin]

So I guess we need the Euros to publicise a concrete list of remedies so we can those industries lobbyists in action for us.