Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 08:51 PM
from the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do dept.
United States Government The Internet
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.'"

Related Stories

Firehose:US IP hypocrisy: ignoring unwelcome WTO rulings by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • Proper syntax (Score:5, Funny)

    by suso (153703) * on Wednesday March 26, @08:52PM (#22876538) Homepage Journal
    <?xml version="1.0">
    <comment>
    <sarc>Yeah, but everyone knows that Irish music sucks so its just not the same as when people copy Brittney Spears.</sarc>
    </comment>

  • And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coutch (157269) on Wednesday March 26, @08:54PM (#22876556)
    Given the way this administration has been handling Foreign Policy, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone ...

    • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MoonlightSeraphim (1253752) on Wednesday March 26, @09:02PM (#22876644)
      Honestly, I was about to make the same comment. Which part of this article is a news? If it's about the facts and events where US still didn't comply with WTO rulings then it was a good read. However, if the article was supposed to articulate the fact that US doesn't comply unless it is in their favor ... well, it is really an outdated news. Even though, I'm sure I will be modded either Troll or Flaimbait but it is a sad truth. Whenever it comes to harassing other countries in favor of US or, just to be more precise, US companies & corporations, then it is a first priority for them. While if it is otherwise situation nothing will change since US government considers themselves to be kings of the world and that their laws and points of view should prevail over everything and everyone else.

      • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lgw (121541) on Wednesday March 26, @09:09PM (#22876696) Journal
        I don't think that's flamebait at all: US corps act in their own interest exclusively, with no concern for "fairness". That's even a legal requirement of the directors and officers of a corp.

        Of course a corporation uses it's influence to try to get favorable WTO rulings enfored with an iron fist, and unfavorable rulings delayed or ignored. That's how they're supposed to act. Ideally congresscritters would care about the people they represent, but it's hardly news that they instead care about they corporations that they represent.

        I disagree that the "US government considers themselves to be kings of the world and that their laws and points of view should prevail over everything and everyone else", as the "US government" isn't a person, it's composed of people who are just trying to do what's best for their campaign contributers.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schon (31600) on Wednesday March 26, @09:32PM (#22876872) Homepage

          US corps act in their own interest exclusively, with no concern for "fairness". That's even a legal requirement of the directors and officers of a corp.
          Except that this isn't a "corp", it's the fscking US Government

          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.

          • 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.

            In the words of our Vice President: So?

          • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday March 27, @05:22AM (#22879524) Journal
            All of this because corporate money controls US politics. It is called corruption in some places, lobbying in US. If you don't like it, spread the word about Lawrence Lessig's Change Congress [change-congress.org] movements and ask your representative his/her position on this issue.
            • Dare I use the word fascist?

              Well, you should. People have been "Godwined" out of calling American fascism what it is for far too long. Any time anyone dares to point out that the current state of the US government, with its collusion between corporate and political interests, is turning into the very definition of fascism, they're greeted with howls of righteous fury and snide comments like, "When we start rounding up all the Jews and throwing them in death camps, let us know." But fascism is essentially an economic philosophy, not a racial or religious one; the anti-Semitism that went along with the German variety was pretty much absent in Italy, where fascism was invented and named.

              The funny thing is that the same right-wingers who mock people who call American fascism by its proper name are very quick to label their political opponents "Communists" or "Marxists," even though no mainstream American politician, no matter how leftist, has ever come close to proposing anything like true Communism or even socialism. (People who think the New Deal and its sequelae are socialist have no clue what they're talking about.) But the "moderate" policies praised by centrist Democrats and Republicans alike are straight out of Mussolini's playbook.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mdarksbane (587589) on Wednesday March 26, @10:56PM (#22877604)
          Is there any government for whom this isn't true? Most theories of nations and international politics indicate that national leaders move largely according to what they can get away with. Anyone expecting different is projecting quite a bit of idealism onto a process that really isn't.

          • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday March 27, @12:29AM (#22878276) Journal
            Congress is obliged to pass laws enforcing treaties with other sovereign states which it has passed. I mean, that's the whole point of a treaty.

            The US may want to reconsider its behavior. It's failing dollar, failing industries and general economic decline means WTO-sanctioned actions against it may in the future have a far more potent result. Today it's tiny little guys like Antigua, but imagine if China or the EU were given similar favorable rulings. It could devastate already-ailing industries.

            • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday March 27, @02:34AM (#22878912)
              Morality doesn't enter into it, but legality does. Corps are obliged to boil babies *wherever legal* if it is the best use of funds. Directors have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, which as Wikipedia explains is a strong obligation.

              Perhaps you could explain just which part of that article you're talking about. Because I can't see it.

              A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
              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 to ...". They're lying. You have no more right or obligation, moral or legal, to be an asshole as a fiduciary than you do as a "person". The Nuremberg defence didn't work then, and doesn't work now.

      • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Informative)

        by msobkow (48369) on Wednesday March 26, @09:28PM (#22876846) Journal

        It's nothing new to Canada and our long-standing disputes over softwood lumber and other issues. The US even ignores it's own courts when it doesn't like the rulings.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Brian Gordon (987471) on Wednesday March 26, @09:57PM (#22877098) Homepage
          But what do you want us to do? It's our policy to regularly destroy hard drives after they've been subpoenaed by a federal court.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vic-traill (1038742) on Wednesday March 26, @11:02PM (#22877666)

          It's nothing new to Canada and our long-standing disputes over softwood lumber and other issues. The US even ignores it's own courts when it doesn't like the rulings.

          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.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Informative)

          by rbrander (73222) on Wednesday March 26, @10:10PM (#22877196) Homepage
          >>Canada dumps lumber in the US at subsidized prices

          Well, that would be YOUR point of view. Canada's point of view is different.

          That's why we have courts...in this case, the WTO.

          And the WTO court found your point of view to not reflect reality, and Canada's point of view to reflect reality much, much better. Repeatedly.

          And every time, the US effectively ignored the court ruling. Please, I don't want to start an argument over softwood lumber. I'm just stating the facts: the WTO ruled against the US, and the US did not adjust its behaviour the way they would have insisted on another country doing had another country received the same ruling.

          The headline on this story would have been more correct by removing the "IP" from the sentence. "The US ignores unwelcome WTO Rulings" - of every kind. Maybe not ALL of them, but certainly some cases that are matters of much, much journalistic coverage. Many of these cases pre-date the Bush2 administration.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Informative)

          by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday March 27, @12:34AM (#22878306) Journal

          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 a real pity that no one, not even the WTO or NAFTA actually agrees with this claim. Of course, repeating lies over and over to get your way is a classic example. The reality is that your sawmills basically want to turn Canadian forests into private wood lots, to enforce their own model of forestry on a sovereign state.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday March 26, @10:20PM (#22877282) Homepage Journal
          You are missing two things. First, the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) specifically states that any treaty obligations shall be the law of the land, and so you are legally, according to the constitution, bound by WTO rulings since the WTO powers are granted by a treaty. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the USA is expecting US law to extend over most of the world and is attempting to use the WTO to enforce this. Since the principle export of the USA is IP, your economy would be in an even worse state than it is now if the rest of the world took the same attitude the USA does to WTO IP rulings.

        • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Admiral Ag (829695) on Wednesday March 26, @10:24PM (#22877312)
          Look, you can't have trade without rules. Americans are able to trade with each other because the US has laws enforcing contracts and agreements. It is no different between states: some agreement about the rules is required to protect people who want to trade across borders. If the US wants to ignore the agreements it has made, then other countries will ignore their agreements and everyone will be worse off. International trade is for the most part beneficial to all parties. Actions like this are the result of special interests and are damaging not only to other countries but to Americans who aren't part of that interest group.

          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.

        • Of COURSE the US laws and points of view prevail IN THE US over anything else. We are a soverign nation. We have our own laws and our own courts. We aren't SUPPOSED to be controlled by every other country on the planet. Our SCOTUS isn't SUPPOSED to be considering other country's laws when they rule on laws we have passed here, they have a Constitution they are supposed to consider as supreme.

          That Constitution says nothing about the WTO getting to change US laws they don't like. It says nothing about UN Resolutions. Our government tops out at the federal level.
          There's a loophole in the Constitution however...

          From Article VI:

          "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

          Technically you don't need an amendment to change the Constitution and the supreme law of the US, all you need is 67 Senators and the President to concoct and agree to a treaty with a foreign power. That treaty then has the same weight as the Constitution.

          Retired NJ Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano has written a couple of books which touch on the subject of how the federal government has been able to subvert the Constitution. Check out "Constitutional Chaos" and "The Constitution in Exile"

    • Re:And you are surprised because ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krlynch (158571) on Wednesday March 26, @09:31PM (#22876866) Homepage
      Actually, this has next to nothing to do with this or any Administration unilaterally ignoring WTO rulings. The issues raised in the article have to do with laws passed by the Congress of the United States. Without the Congress of the United States repealing those laws, the current (or indeed, any future) Administration has no power to do anything about these WTO rulings.

  • Hypocricy rampant in the Whitehouse... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Wednesday March 26, @08:56PM (#22876576) Journal
    movie at 11:00....

  • Lack of Campaign Funding (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday March 26, @09:00PM (#22876606)
    If the WTO wants American politicians to listen them, then they need to pony up with the 'campaign funding' like everyone else.

  • Powerful Countries often ignore the rules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD (801820) on Wednesday March 26, @09:00PM (#22876614)
    Back in the 80s the US even ignored a ruling from the World Court to cease it's terrorist activities in Nicaragua, which included mining the harbours and putting civilian shipping in great danger. It even ignored the two subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions demanding that it observe the World Court Ruling.

    It basically comes down to this. If you are powerful, you can ignore the rules. If you are not, you may well be in serious trouble.

  • Well (Score:5, Funny)

    by phoenixwade (997892) on Wednesday March 26, @09:00PM (#22876616) Homepage
    The Federal government here in the US is allowing corporate interests to screw us, it's citizens, why not the rest of the world too? At least it's consistent.

  • Who cares really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by knivesx11 (1085179) on Wednesday March 26, @09:03PM (#22876650)
    The big problem with the WTO is that it exists to try to find equities in other peoples laws. In my country its legal to do something that might be illegal in yours. The problem with that is that its great when people are talking about physical properties, however its much more difficult when dealing with the same disputes on intellectual property. If I play a radio in my work than its the station that sells advertisements that pays for the songs. As long as I don't advertise the fact like some kind of main street concert hall than I'm not sure why it matters.

    • Paying for radio? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Neuticle (255200) on Wednesday March 26, @10:02PM (#22877144) Homepage
      If I play a radio in my work than its the station that sells advertisements that pays for the songs. As long as I don't advertise the fact like some kind of main street concert hall than I'm not sure why it matters.



      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?

      • Re:Paying for radio? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr2001 (90979) on Wednesday March 26, @10:47PM (#22877492) Homepage Journal

        How is Europe so completely backwards on this issue?
        I agree about the radio royalties. It's absurd that I can listen to my radio for free, and you can listen to your radio for free, and all of our friends can listen to their radios for free, but then if we all meet up together and listen to the same radio, suddenly someone has to get paid for it.

        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.

  • 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?

  • Autonomy (Score:4, Informative)

    by treesloth (1095251) on Wednesday March 26, @09:24PM (#22876802)
    I really don't see the problem. Member nations are autonomous. Any compliance with demands from the World Court, the UN or the WTO is strictly voluntary for any nation. Their real authority is precisely whatever the member nations decide. That's not just for the US-- it's for any member nation of any such organization. Orders from the UN and similar groups really just don't matter unless they can back them up-- and they can't. I prefer it that way, honestly. The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.

    • Re:Autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind (821714) on Thursday March 27, @01:59AM (#22878794)

      The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.
      You have to be really on the right end of the fascist scale to claim that the WTO is socialist, given that it was created by the USA to serve the interests of capitalism.

  • Thank you US government (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nrlightfoot (607666) on Wednesday March 26, @09:51PM (#22877050) Homepage
    I am very glad that businesses here don't need to pay $30,000 a year to play the radio where customers can hear it. It's nice when our government protects us from abusive regulations, even if it doesn't happen very often.

    • Re:Thank you US government (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plasmacutter (901737) on Wednesday March 26, @10:00PM (#22877122) Journal
      It happens all the time, but only when the "us" referred to make over 1 million dollars gross income per year and provide "campaign contributions" to the relevant lawmakers.

      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.

       

  • Better Examples Please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LaskoVortex (1153471) on Wednesday March 26, @09:58PM (#22877108)

    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:

    • The so-called "Irish Music" dispute concerns the portion of US copyright law that lets restaurants and shops play broadcast music without compensating the copyright holders.
      => I would be willing to wager that most everyone commenting on this thread would consider that fair use.
    • The Havana Club issues stems from the long-standing US effort to impose sanctions on Cuba.
      => 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.
    • The second case concerns Antigua and Barbuda, a small Caribbean country home to all sorts of online vices, including gambling and DRM circumvention. Antigua took the US to the WTO years ago over charges that the US was unfairly criminalizing access to Antiguan gambling websites...
      => 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.

    • China crisis (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26, @10:38PM (#22877404)
      Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses?

      Yes. That explains those extensive sanctions against China too.

      Oh, hang on ...

  • It's True (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bullfish (858648) on Wednesday March 26, @09:59PM (#22877118)
    The US has more trade agreements with Canada than any other country and in Canada's experience it is absolutely true. The US government's negotiators howl about DRM, our approach to health care, pharmacuticals, gay marriage, drug "leniency" etc, etc while ignoring rluling after ruling not just by the WTO, but by the NAFTA boards, and other committees that supposedly govern bilateral trade. Largely they do it because they can get away with it.

    I have no doubt that the US will recover from it's financial woes. The world economy is changing though, and competition for resources is increasing. The US's negotiating position is changing as well. Instead of being the one of a few major buyers of commodities, they are now among many. Ignoring multilateral trade rulings as a routine is going to end as a consequence. At least if the US government is smart about it.

      • Re:IP stakes are "increasing"? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plasmacutter (901737) on Wednesday March 26, @09:26PM (#22876824) Journal
        IP should stand for "imaginary" rather than "intellectual" property. It means absolutely nothing if nobody agrees to enforce it, and as such does not provide a secure or stable source of GDP.

        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:There is no World Government... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Petrushka (815171) on Wednesday March 26, @09:38PM (#22876942)

      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,

      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 ...

    • Re:Veto Powers Abused too! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MrSteveSD (801820) on Wednesday March 26, @10:07PM (#22877180)
      The US has used the Veto the most times, at least since the 80s. Of course all 5 permanent dictators of the UN Security Council have the veto power. Even the threat of Veto (Hidden Veto) is enough to stop resolutions from even being proposed. That's what happened with Rwanda. France and the US threatened to veto anything that had the word "Genocide" in it, because it would have required immediate action. Yet it is not France and the US that people blame for Rwanda. Instead people look at Rwanda and say the UN is to blame (the US and France must be quite relieved at that).

      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".