US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings 448
Eye Log writes "The United States is a big fan of leaning on other countries to tighten IP and copyright protection, but has a tendency to ignore its own obligations when it doesn't get its way. 'Two ongoing cases illustrate the point. First, the European Union is pushing for the US to change a pair of rules that it calls "long-standing trade irritants." Despite World Trade Organization rulings against it, the US has not yet corrected either case for a period of several years... Apparently, it's easy to get hot and bothered when it's industries from your country that claim to be badly affected by rules elsewhere. When it comes to the claims of other countries, though, even claims that have been validated by the WTO, it's much easier to see the complexity of the situation, to spend years arguing those complexities before judges, and to do nothing even when compelled by rulings.'"
And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypocricy rampant in the Whitehouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sorry to see this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there is likely hypocrisy in this on the part of the US, but "do as I say, not as I do" on the part of the US is not news to anyone here. What I am glad to see, though, is that most countries seem to have some willingness to ignore at least some of the ridiculousness inherent in "intellectual property" law. The idea that ideas can be owned and hoarded is dying, and anything that hastens its demise is fine by me. How can one hoard ideas in a world where knowledge, information, and media are simply at the end of one's fingertips on a keyboard?
There is no World Government... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I can gain an advantage by getting others to follow phony rules, good for me, but I'm not bound by them.
Note that this is significantly different than treaties, which are between specific countries, and spell out specific remedies, the ultimate being the offended party withdrawing from the treaty (or war).
Re:And that is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany is one of the greenest countries in Europe, even giving citizens a fixed rate on solar energy they produce. France produces most of it's electricity through Nuclear power.
Bad Moderators. Go to your room. No soup for you.
Re:IP stakes are "increasing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any economist foolish enough to believe in "IP" as a long term foundation for an economy is not only incompetent, but dangerous to whomever he councils.
You either take action against outsourcing or you face the slides happening in the US economy now.
jobs get outsourced
government doesnt take action
rents go up, job opportunities go down, inflation occurs as your constant trade imbalance floods the rest of the planet with fiat money.
economies are based on production of real goods and services, not residual income dependent only on the willing
compliance of neighbors.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hypocritical for representatives of the US government to lambaste other countries for WTO "violations", when the US Government turns a blind eye to infringement happening in their own country.
Either the US government is for strict interpretation and enforcement or it's not. Pick one.
Re:Veto Powers Abused too! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Canada dumps lumber in the US at subsidized prices, but the subsidy is the less than fair market price for the wood on their equivalent of national forests. Who determines what they call fair market price? The Canadian government. And correctly so. Whether Canada wants it's money from stump royalties or income taxes on employed workers is their call.
It's about time the US had as much enlightened self-interest as the French. All that consistently "taking one for free trade" has gotten for us is bankruptcy. Wages haven't moved since 1973. First we put the women to work. Since then the standard of living has been maintained by home equity loans on the ever rising value of a house. Now that that has stopped, pain will ensue. Whether the pain will be inflation (raise prices on everything else so that housing isn't over priced anymore) or deflation (as book-keeping entries develop the same marginal value as other "IP") is the question of the year.
Stay tuned.
Re:There is no World Government... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that this is significantly different than treaties,
You seem to be under the impression that the WTO is an organisation that just appeared out of thin air -- rather than, say, as a result of lots of countries signing up to binding agreements -- also known as "treaties" (such as GATT and the Marrakesh Agreement).
If you think it's a good thing for your country to abdicate the responsibilities it has itself assumed under the provisions of treaties it willingly signed, then you are simply wanting your country to be a criminal, or rogue state.
By the way, remind me never to sign any contract with you ...
Thank you US government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better Examples Please (Score:5, Insightful)
US trade policy is self-serving, we all know that. But couldn't the author provide some good examples to really make the point? These are pretty weak:
=> I would be willing to wager that most everyone commenting on this thread would consider that fair use.
=> Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses? The governments calling USA to task on this have companies which have "invested in Cuban business". The trademarks are not protected in the US to limit Cuban companies profiting from these trademarks in the US. If other countries want to sell their rum in the US under a protected trademark, they seem free to use a different trademark. Whether US trade sanctions against Cuba are moral or justified is a different issue from IP.
=> Legal gambling outfits in the US follow strict gambling laws that regulate, among other things, machine calibration, payout ratios, etc. Online gambling from other countries is outlawed in the USA because the mechanisms to ensure fairness can not be physically confirmed by government representatives.
Re:Veto Powers Abused too! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the kind of situation that currently exists internationally and it's not a good thing.
Re:Thank you US government (Score:5, Insightful)
for the rest of us there's:
the dmca
local monopoly power for ISP's
rubber stamped mergers across the board (you have freedom of choice! you can choose "the x company" or nothing at all!)
the real id act
the patriot act
warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity when we sue for it
continuous streams of supreme court rulings which invalidate the crumbling constitution (see anything signed by souter)
the rise of the fourth estate, which is now so in bed with the government it may as well be state run.
Paying for radio? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. How is Europe so completely backwards on this issue? Every pair of ears that listens to the songs is a pair of ears that listens to the ads as well, and those ads pay the bills. I would think the radio stations and music labels would be GLAD to have people listening to them in workplaces and waiting rooms.
If these laws were enforced in the USA, there would be riots, then it would be silence or royalty-free classical music only.
What bureaucratic knot did they invent to justify why should it cost money if you listen in a place of business when it's designed to be a free-to-receive service?
We Should Really Give the WTO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also interesting that given the choice of making relatively small changes to the law versus coughing up fines, the U.S. is consistently choosing to pay fines. As I understand it, the fines don't actually come directly out of lawmakers' bank accounts, but also affect a number of citizens who weren't even involved in the violation. Shocking!
Re:Veto Powers Abused too! (Score:4, Insightful)
The will of the world is expressed through General Assembly Resolutions, but perversely they are non binding, whereas the UN Security Council dictatorship resolutions are binding. Then again, it wouldn't really matter if the General Assembly resolutions were binding, because powerful countries like the US, Russia, China etc would just ignore them. Since the major powers clearly have no interest in obeying the rules, it comes down to who is militarily powerful, and that is a very poor lesson to teach the rest of the world. The result of all this is that more and more countries will try to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to join this "power club".
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Powerful Countries often ignore the rules (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is a sovereign nation with a sovereign government given the power to enact treaties with other nations. If you expect other nations to live up to their side of the treaties you like, then you have to stick to your obligations under the ones you don't like. The US is no longer in the position where it can violate whatever treaty it likes without consequences. This is not 1950. You aren't even the world's largest economy any more and the status of the dollar as reserve currency is the lowest it has been since the signing of Bretton Woods.
Simple self interest ought to be enough to motivate the US to abide by the agreements it has made.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but if you look at it that way, the justification for flaming the U.S. and/or Bush is diminished, and the ignorant masses won't be able to gain as much self esteem by insulting the U.S. or Bush.
China crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That explains those extensive sanctions against China too.
Oh, hang on
Re:There is no World Government... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying a treaty is different to a treaty is insightfull? - Sounds more like a government press release to me.
Re:Paying for radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, let's not lose sight of the point here, which is the double standard. We have some pretty absurd requests of other countries too, and if we expect them to go along with our absurd requests, we're going to have to go along with theirs.
US will not reopen NAFTA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a really interesting case, in that the U.S. is using a related WTO ruling on this matter to ignore the NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC) ruling. So, WTO rulings are welcomed on one hand, and ignored on another.
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-09-07/story4.htm [ictsd.org]This approach makes it pretty hard to deny assertions that trans-national trade agreements are welcome in the United States, as long as they are favourable; if not, fsck them. This isn't free trade, it is using free trade as a means to remove trade restrictions viewed as punitive or restrictive against U.S. trade.
In my experience, this speaks directly to opposition in Canada against free trade agreements. The folks I argue out the problems of the world over scotch and beer with are not so much against free trade, but rather are skeptical as to whether 'free' has bi-directional meaning in practise.
Right, and that makes it OK? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Irish musicians are being treated exactly the same way that all other musicians are being treated here, and they are still free to sell their CDs here if people are interested in buying them. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual WTO treaty violation there.
Likewise the issue of trademark law is an internal issue to the US, these companies are still allowed to sell their goods in the US, they just don't get trademark protection if they're using trademarks which were owned by Cuban businesses. The US has the right to decide what is and is not protected under our trademark law.
Yes, we're being terribly hypocritical, but the WTO really and truly does not have the authority to force us to make those particular changes.
Those two issues pale in comparison to the kind of boot legging and piracy that go on in some parts of the world. The WTO itself has been guilty of abusing IP as a means of gaining compliance for things which it hasn't the authority to arbitrate in the first place.
I know that it's popular with the hate America first groups to make a big deal out of all this, but it's apples and oranges. The US is the leading exporter of IP, of course we're going to be concerned with piracy. But why is it that we can't at least acknowledge that these cases are hardly the same as the rampant piracy in some parts of the world and are hardly appropriate issues for the WTO to arbitrate in the first place.
Re:We Should Really Give the WTO (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, cheating on sales tax is a lot easier than cheating on income tax. Imagine buying a $10,000 car - if you have to pay 30% sales tax, that's $13,000 total. Now suppose you offer to pay $11,500 cash if the dealer doesn't report the sale: you both gain $1500 and no one will notice, unless you want to keep the IRS around and let them audit every business's inventory.
Just between us Americans..... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is true. The constitution does, however gives congress the right to sign treaties with foreign governments. I looked it up: from section 2 on the powers of the president:
My understanding is that the congress passed and the president signed all previous rounds of the WTO agreements. We have representation in the WTO, both in setting it up and each round of talks. We also had full representation during the judgments that went against us.The laws of Germany or some other sovereign country do not have anything to do with this case. Prior presidents and Congresses lawfully entered our nation into agreements with other nations for (perceived) mutual benefit. If no longer feel the treaties are of benefit, I believe we can leave the organization, but overall it does a great deal of good, especially for the shareholders of large US companies that sell abroad. If they do not want their moral power diluted, perhaps THEY should encourage their congressmen to enforce the ruling...
As for you foreigners, while you are technically correct that the US is just as out of line as other countries, I detect a mean-spiritedness in your comments. Are you feeling resentful because you are being "pushed around" by the US on this issue? Get over it. This is an argument over money, and probably not even yours. This is the money of the rich people in the US v.s. the rich in your country. If you aren't rich, you have no dog in this race. If you are rich, shut up and enjoy it.
Save your mean-spirited comments for where they belong: discussions of US foreign policy and our tendency to invade places.
Re:Powerful Countries often ignore the rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the problem lies in the fact that, 200 years ago, all treaties merely dealt with how countries dealt with one another, and never affected how a country executed its domestic laws, or treated its domestic citizenry. (Admiralty law, and how extra-territorial citizens were treated is different.) The entire conception of "treaty" has changed. Compounded by the dearth of Supreme Court interpretation of either conception, and it becomes an extremely difficult question.
That doesn't mean its fair. European countries don't have the same sort of Constitutional governance that America has (we're unique in both the role that the Constitution plays--shared w/ many post-colonial countries, _and_ in how rigorously we attempt to abide by it--shared w/ very few countries). So while European countries are naturally more willing to allow treaties to intrude on domestic governance, the US isn't for very significant political and historical reasons.
But rather than complain about the "rule of law", and the headaches it causes, wouldn't it be better to praise it? It's a double-edged sword. The European Commission often impedes in the Constitutional spheres of the European Council and Parliament. That's tolerated in Europe far more than it would be here. It might allow for quicker resolution of issues like this sometimes, but its not clear to me that its preferable overall.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Better Examples Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, if US has the moral right to impose sanctions on cuba & iran due to huma rights violations, should it not do the same to Saudi Arabia (flogging, etc), Pakistan, New Iraq, Kuwait (where women are nit allowed to vote)?
Anyway, what's wrong with other countries demanding US play by the same rules they are asked to follow in the same place?
Remember Super 501 laws? Which allowed US to turn around and impose a country's laws on the same country if it thought the country violated free trade?
Once a US corporate buys out a few Antiguan gambling corporates, you can expect REAL change, REAL quick.
Let's face it. The world is not fair. Each country is entitled to screw the other if it benefits them. US has every right to do so, and so do Iran, EU and other countries.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! The Constitution also spells out that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Congress and the president don't have the legal right to give jurisdiction to a foreign court.
And as an aside, what a dumb law that Irish Music thing is. That's nice, you can't play the radio at work without forking money over to somebody.
Re:Autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you could explain just which part of that article you're talking about. Because I can't see it.
Which part of that requires, or even condones, being an amoral asshole? So many MBA types think they have a licence to kill by just saying "Fiduciary duty compels me toRe:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought Bush and Cheney already classified constitution as toilet paper in their speeches about 2 years ago.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does having one seat at the UN etc. got to do with economic policy? The EU negotiates as one block with the outside world where economic treaties etc. are concerned. *That* is what makes it count as a single economic unit.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say the difference between these two concepts is getting smaller every year, with the campaining system as it is and the two corporation backed political families Bush and Clinton.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Provisions of that treaty is non-discrimination: if specifics goods and services are legal in your country, and a private US company or organisation can legally provide these goods and services in the US, then a non-US company or organisation is allowed, by the terms of the treaty the US signed, to import those goods and services to the US market.
And that's the whole Antigua gambling mess. On-line gambling is allowed in the US (or parts of). Therefore, on-line gambling can be provided by Antigua companies. Legislation to the contrary is incompatible with the WTO treaty, and offer your government only two choice: alter your legislation to conform to your treaty obligations, or forgeoing the treaty. Your government as indicated that it wants to keep its incompatible legislation, but that carries a penalty: you cannot pick and choose which parts of a treaty apply. You do not comply with the treaty obligations, you cannot ask for the treaty's protection.
It is not piracy - what Antigua is doing is perfectly legal in the framework that your country accepted. Embargoing Antigua or blockading Antigua would be an entirely illegal action, and an act of war. Of course, being Antigua, and you being the US, you can declare war on Antigua anytime you want. Might makes right, and given the current might, the US can put all the pressure it wants, about anywhere. Any country can do whatever it wants - if they want to pay the price that comes with it. Escalating its violations of its treaties which were mostly written by the US anyway is always an option. I'm not so sure that the US' best interests lie in breaking out of the WTO.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The British media is complicit. Even the BBC had an article recently about how bus companies have to force their passengers to change buses on long-distance routes "because of crazy EU law".
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
In our country, our individual states can make laws, and our federal government can make laws. What flies in Massachusetts may not fly in Utah (Gay Marriage, for instance). That's one of the things we love about our country; we can still be American, but go to another state that allows us to do the things we wish to do.
The Federal Government can enter into treaties; this is true. But they don't necessarily have the right to force states to comply with those treaties (depending on the situation). In this case, they'd have to pass a law stating that all gambling is illegal, and I highly doubt that would work.
So, in this case, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place...and an anvil. And another rock. Outlaw gambling on the federal level, make it a law that states have to allow gambling, allow Antigua to provide online gambling services to states who do not want gambling, or, I suppose, do nothing.
I can tell you none of these are going to happen except maybe the latter, and they're going to be blasted for it. But once you know how our government is structured, you realize compliance is a pie in the sky affair. So, by all means, the WTO can do what they need to do, and we'll just have to live with it. It sucks, but there is no solution that is reasonable for all parties involved - at least to them, and there is no solution that would pass political muster except for the standard "fuck the world, they're telling us what to do!" way that comes so easy to our self-righteous, stubborn asses.
I'll say it again (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush lied in his oath of office about defending the constitution.
I know which I think is treasonous.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have they been able to do so?
Monsanto demands payment each year from such corn growers and in additon makes the corrupt government send troops to quell "dissidence" when farmers too poor refuse to pay and try to reuse corn.
I agree, lumber is just a symptom. There are far bigger fish to fry: US Steel industry, GM crops being imposed on other countries leading to mass suicides, refusal to open up textile markets, refusal to open up or stop subsidizing food markets.
Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just saying that every country who is in a position to force agreements to their advantage, does. Canada is stuck hoping that people are fair because they're usually the little guy trading with the big guy - you get stuck playing with the big guy's rules.
It sucks, but it's the way things are, and don't think for a minute it wouldn't be reversed if Canada were the more powerful trading partner. It's not "The US is Evil," it's "Everyone's Evil, but the US is Evil *and* powerful."