New Cardplayer article on WTO & the legislation - Page 4

*TT* · #31 10-04-2006, 09:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line. Antigua won. The US needs to either ban all remote wagering or allow Antigua access .

[/ QUOTE ]

So essentially the US has the choice of:
1) banning all remote wagering
2) permitting Antiguan remote horse raise betting

Finally if the US does not comply that essentially opens up the doors to all remote gambling. Am I correct?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Mr.K · #32 10-04-2006, 09:59 AM

Cardplayer continues to serve up articles that pale in terms of quality and editing compared with the posts in this forum by Nate, Berge, and others. Adding insult to injury, they charge money for their crap. Yeesh.

Honestly, most of the industry pubs have so much of a vested interest, and are so far inside the gambling bubble that they are either unable or unwilling to give rational/balanced accounts of legislation. In the run up to passage of the SAFE Ports Act, CP's columns constantly spit out the prevailing know-nothing, "they'll never do it and if they do it won't be enforced" tripe. Now they're selling the WTO, lawsuit, and enforcement shams. Don't believe any of it.

A serious reality check is due for the gambling industry. Each stakeholder is going to be affected differently, but it is time the reporting on what's going on catch up with reality.

swarm · #33 10-04-2006, 10:05 AM

"The decision orders the U.S. to bring the horse racing bill into compliance. Of course we know that nobody cares about horse racing, so it is a very hollow victory for antigua. There were some issues that were left undecided by the courts because Antigua didn't properly state them in their complaint, but to call the appellate decision anything other than a loss for antigua and internet gambling is just plain wrong."

I think you greatly underestimate the lobbying power of the horse racing industry in this country. Fact is if this bill didn't have a carve out for horse racing it wouldn't have seen the light of day. So yes powerful people do care about horse racing.

iron81 · #34 10-04-2006, 10:19 AM

My previous understanding of the WTO ruling is that Antigua won, but that the US told them to take a hike because Antigua is so small. This Financial Times article confirms that. The WTO can be an out for us, but only if a country (not the poker sits) that is large enough takes up our cause. For further reading, I have made a few other posts on the WTO this week:

Link Summary: Brief case history
Link Summary: Brief case history
Link Summary: The WTO isn't toothless.

Utah · #35 10-04-2006, 10:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My previous understanding of the WTO ruling is that Antigua won, but that the US told them to take a hike because Antigua is so small. This Financial Times article confirms that. The WTO can be an out for us, but only if a country (not the poker sits) that is large enough takes up our cause. For further reading, I have made a few other posts on the WTO this week:

Link Summary: Brief case history
Link Summary: Brief case history
Link Summary: The WTO isn't toothless.

[/ QUOTE ]I think it has already been discussed here but there are so many posts in this forum I cant remember. Doesn't Antigua have a trump card in that they can turn around and refuse to recognize U.S. intellectual property rights - tit for tat.

I apologize that my post is completely uneducated. However, if I was Antigua I would threaten to execute a retalitory strategy - "Hey, you want to screw us because we are so small. No problem. Hey, would you like to download a copy of the Departed and Jackass 2 from our Antiguan supplier?".

ReelDeal07 · #36 10-04-2006, 10:55 AM

Party is going to regret this decision.

Colonel Kataffy · #37 10-04-2006, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"The decision orders the U.S. to bring the horse racing bill into compliance. Of course we know that nobody cares about horse racing, so it is a very hollow victory for antigua. There were some issues that were left undecided by the courts because Antigua didn't properly state them in their complaint, but to call the appellate decision anything other than a loss for antigua and internet gambling is just plain wrong."

I think you greatly underestimate the lobbying power of the horse racing industry in this country. Fact is if this bill didn't have a carve out for horse racing it wouldn't have seen the light of day. So yes powerful people do care about horse racing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know horse racing has a strong lobby. Thats why it has all these exemptions. My point is that Antigua and others want to open internet casino's and sports books. Being able to open a site that takes bets on horses isn't what they're after.

iron81 · #38 10-04-2006, 11:12 AM

Well, JC2006 posted earlier that it is possible that the WTO could authorize Antigua to violate the copyrights of US companies. However, he sounded like his knowledge of this was vague and I haven't heard anything at all about this. I still think our best shot is to get a larger country to make the same case Antigua did.

Colonel Kataffy · #39 10-04-2006, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line. Antigua won. The US needs to either ban all remote wagering or allow Antigua access .

[/ QUOTE ]

So essentially the US has the choice of:
1) banning all remote wagering
2) permitting Antiguan remote horse raise betting

Finally if the US does not comply that essentially opens up the doors to all remote gambling. Am I correct?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The question being debated is whether compliance would require all gambling be made legal or just foreign horse racing.

The specific spot where the Antigua won is that the bills make exemptions for domestic horse racing. If it didn't specifically single out domestic horse racing, then all prohibitions would already have been in compliance. The ONLY thing that makes U.S. laws out of compliance is this exemption. Thus, all the US has to do is 1) get rid of the exemption or 2) give foriegn gambling firms the same exemptions.

JC is playing advocat for Antigua. His argument is exactly the argument that I would make. Personally, I agree with his position, but this isn't the direction that the appeallate body seems to be taking us in. A reading of the opinion and it is clear that they are reversing the panel on most issues and carving out a way for the U.S. to prohibit gambling.

Yes, Antigua can claim victory on one small point, but its a hollow victory. Antigua wants an open door policy to gambling. To even have a chance at getting U.S. compiance in this, they would need a clear and convincing ruling from the WTO that they aren't in compliance. We need a ruling that is it is non compliance to prohibit poker and sports betting and casino games, not one that just says that laws prohibiting horse racing wagers are non compliant.

Jay Cohen · #40 10-04-2006, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
JC2006,

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua is presently in the middle of the compliance process

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give some further information regarding the compliance process? What is the best case, worst case, and most realistic case going forward in the compliance process for Antigua?

Further, is the UIGA a separate issue alltogether with respect to the WTO's previous ruling?

Also, realistically do you think a WTO ruling will carry any weight for internet gambling in the US without Great Britain being involved?

Thanks for all the insight...

___1___

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I posted in another thread:

I see there is some chatter lately about Antigua's WTO case. Just to bring you up to date. Last Monday Antigua filed their brief with the Compliance Panel. I haven't read it since it's not yet public. But I have a good idea what it says.

It says the US has done nothing to come into compliance, not a thing. The only thing they have done is introduce bills that go against the WTO ruling. Last year the US argued before an arbitrator that it needed 2 to 3 years to come into compliance because it was so complicated. They were only given around 10 months. When the deadline passed, the US told the WTO they were in compliance since the WTO misinterpreted their laws and they didn't have to do anything. I can't make this up.

Anyway, this should be the easiest compliance issue they have ever heard. Normally the country has done something, and the complaining country is saying it's not enough. Here, they have done absolutely nothing.

I'll post the latest brief or link to it once it becomes public. In the meantime go to www.AntiguaWTO.com for details. It may need some updating but most of the core material is available.

The US gets more out of the WTO than any other country. They have always complied with WTO decisions...eventually. The world and in particular developing nations are watching this case closely. The US is always pushing them to join the WTO and telling them it's a level playing field. Major countries are also watching, they want to know why they should comply with adverse decisions if the US won't?

What can Antigua do besides bring international pressure? I am told there is precedent for the WTO to authorize Antigua to violate copyrights and patent protections until they are made whole. That may be an avenue they pursue. I was told they granted it once before and the US quickly came into compliance.

On the merits, Antigua's case was a home run, Frist's Fatwa just gave them a grand slam.
==============

As far as Great Britain being involved they are represented at the WTO through the EU. The EU has filed on Antigua's side every steo of the way and I expect they have reserved their right to do the same in the Compliance Proceedings. So has China and Japan.