US Gambling Law May Cause Flouting of IP Laws 231
Red Flayer writes "Slate Magazine reports that the US's recent actions to clarify restrictions of on-line gambling may have some very important unintended consequences. Antigua has challenged the legitimacy of the US's partial restrictions under the WTO, claiming that the laws represent a free trade infringement. What is so significant about this is that Antigua would be fully justified (and I imagine, would get a lot of support from other nations) in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws. Freetrade.org has a more in-depth analysis (albeit with a predetermined opinion on the topic). Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista."
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
*Both the US and Antigua are WTO members
*The US has refused to obey the WTO decisions on internet gambling
*Under WTO rules, Antigua has the right to a remedy
*Since it's unlikely that Antigua can directly extract a remedy from the US, it can extract it in other ways, such as selling US IP for its own profit.
Re:the right? (Score:3, Informative)
As to Constitutional right, since when has that mattered?
Re:Well sure (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the right? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:the right? (Score:1, Informative)
As far as "prostitution and many other things", Congress does have the right to pass laws to protect the "health and welfare" of citizens. (I'm too lazy to find a citation for this.)
While you are correct that Congress is not given any powers to legislate morality, they are given OTHER powers which may be misapplied to moral issues, e.g. the recent Supreme Court decision that the Federal Government may prohibit growing of Marijuana for personal use on the basis of the Interstate Commerce clause. This interpretation appears to suggest that ANYTHING that can be bought or sold across state lines (including sex?!?) may be regulated by the Feds... guess what -- ANYTHING can be bought or sold, to the Feds now have the right to regulation EVERYTHING! Yep, somebody somewhere can buy a blowjob, so the Feds can now make them illegal!
Re:Antiguasoft Vista (Score:3, Informative)
RTF article dude, you're way off base (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Antigua won was because the US laws are not consistent. US was claiming a "moral exemption" but only transactions to offshore casinos were being regulated. Antigua's argument, which the WTO agreed with, was that if you claim the moral exemption, you have to be consistent, across the board.
If Saudi Arabia only allowed porn from Saudi websites but made Dutch porn illegal, you might have an argument. But if SA decides to ban all porn, the WTO is OK with that too.
Read the fricking article next time. Someone with such a low slashdot ID as you should know better.
Re:Well sure (Score:2, Informative)
That's what the issue is... according to TFA, that's the argument the US is trying to use: "We have a right to protect the morality of our citizens."
What Antigua is saying, however, is that online gambling is NOT restricted in the US (i.e. betting on horse races, state lotteries, etc. are all legal) and that to ban online gambling by foreign countries while still allowing local companies the right to let people bet online is an unfair restriction of trade. I tend to agree with Antigua, and the WTO has as well.
Re:Well sure (Score:3, Informative)