Slashdot Mirror


US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings

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.'"

78 of 448 comments (clear)

  1. Proper syntax by suso · · Score: 4, Funny


    <comment>
    <sarc>Yeah, but everyone knows that Irish music sucks so its just not the same as when people copy Brittney Spears.</sarc>
    </comment>

    1. Re:Proper syntax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      no, no, no! use the "tone" attribute on the "comment" tag!

    2. Re:Proper syntax by arotenbe · · Score: 3, Funny
      Hah!

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
      <comment xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xslashdotcomment">
      <phrase style="voice-tone:sarcasm;">Yeah, but everyone knows that Irish music sucks so its just not the same as when people copy Brittney Spears.</phrase>
      </comment>
      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
  2. And you are surprised because ... ? by coutch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the way this administration has been handling Foreign Policy, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone ...

    1. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by MoonlightSeraphim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 well, it is really an outdated news.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.

    2. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by krlynch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    7. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting
      but it is a sad truth.

      No, it's a glad truth.

      The Revolutionary War took place due to a foreign "government" trying to rule US citizens. The breaking point was taxation without representation, but mostly it was all laws without representation.

      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.

      I'm GLAD that it is that way. If I wanted to live under the laws of Germany, I'd move there. If I wanted Sharia (sp?) law, I'd move to a country that has that. If I think Germany has a stupid law, I have every right to say that, but there is no mechanism for me to force them to change their laws, NOR SHOULD THERE BE. Nor should there be a mechanism for Germans to force a change to our laws. And if using a specific country as an example confuses things, simply replace Germany with any other country. England, Germany, China, Japan, Sweden, whatever.

      If that sounds like flamebait, well, I get tired of hearing people say things like 'The WTO says we are wrong to do X, so obviously we are wrong to do X and our laws must conform.' No. It is not obvious. We do NOT have to do what the WTO says we must. If we listen to the WTO and AGREE, well, that's one thing, but agreement isn't automatic. We can also listen and disagree, and if we disagree, we don't have to act.

      It's like saying that the President doesn't listen to Sheehan or any other protesters because he doesn't immediately do what they demand. Yes, he listens, but he was elected to make choices, and not every person is going to agree with every choice. That's life.

    9. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by navtal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I apologize but i am having trouble seeing where corporation and the US Government begin and end. Dare I use the word fascist? I fear for our future.

    10. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by rbrander · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>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.

    11. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    13. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by phantomlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      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"
      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    14. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by mdarksbane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by vic-traill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      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.

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    16. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      The attitude that "rules apply to everyone else but not to us" is the single most distinctive aspect of the current US administration. Torture, the Geneva convention, the world court for prosecuting war crimes, illegal bugging of US citizens, the ABM treaty - and that's just what I can think of in a few seconds.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    17. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Care to address the other point the poster made?

      If the rest of the world ignored U.S. patents and copyright, then I'm fairly certain the U.S. would care. Same deal with what the U.S. is doing you know - it's not necessarily in the best interest of Europe or any foreign group to follow the laws of the United States.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    18. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Miseph · · Score: 3, Informative

      Re-read that passage, it doesn't say what you think it says. SCOTUS can rule a treaty unconstitutional just like any other law, and the Constitutionally dictated solution is to withdraw from the treaty.

      That said, the current SCOTUS is full of hacks and ideologues who will support whatever their neo-con cohorts wish regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say. Score one for PNAC.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    19. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by hxnwix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think that's flamebait at all: US corps act in their own interest exclusively, with no concern for "fairness". The comment to which you reply and the article both bemoan the US government's failure to uphold valid international judgments that happen to go against US companies. This isn't about fairness - failure to abide by WTO judgments certainly represents treaty violation and, by definition, infringes upon international law.

      Above all else, the US government is obligated to obey by the rule of law.

      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. No. I'm sorry; the US government is not the fucking mafia. Corporations may lobby the government to do anything whatsoever, but the government must stop short of doing those things that are illegal.

      I hope I've managed to put this into better context for you. To reiterate:

      Legal: US may do.
      Illegal: US MAY NOT DO.

      One more time: No. The answer to illegal requests is always no, and it doesn't matter who the fuck is asking. If it does, it's a crime.
    20. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Mathinker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Judging from the article linked from the comment above, in the softwood case in question, the WTO backed the US, and NAFTA was the international body which supported the Canadian position.

      Either you and lots of mods are dreamin', or you're talking about a different trade conflict with Canada...

    23. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    24. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by freedom_india · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What constitution?
      I thought Bush and Cheney already classified constitution as toilet paper in their speeches about 2 years ago.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    25. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't like the WTO rules or think they infringe on your sovereignty don't join the WTO. If you do join then you should do your part.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    26. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by KDR_11k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd destroy your own economy in the process since that importing isn't just stuff you don't need. Stopping imports would create a massive shortage of resources and equipment (never mind the consumer goods that get imported) and leave you with the little manufacturing capacity left inside the US to supply the whole country. The capacity was scaled back because of the imports, it can't be scaled back up on short notice. Costs for resources would go up massively, companies that have little or no local production will not be able to produce anything and you'd get a total economy crash as a result.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 movements and ask your representative his/her position on this issue.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    28. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by rasilon · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's pretty much a standing joke in the EU, that there's a hypothetical department that comes up with stupid rules just so that everyone can laugh at the British for trying to implement them when every other country knows not to bother...

    29. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by varcher75 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I have a difficulty accepting your argument.

      the on line gambling represent the sovereignty of the nation and isn't subject to an outside country demanding laws.
      Actually, it is. Your country voluntary entered into an international treaty organisation (the WTO), which indicates that your country accepted the obligations set forth in the treaty.

      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.
    30. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There were quite a large number of people in the US that didn't want the US to join the WTO, complete with rallies and protests.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    31. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by xaxa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So Antigua is going to ignore the copyright on USA goods if the USA doesn't comply with the WTO rulings by the end of March. They say they have the WTO's support in this. They hope that the MPAA (etc) will be angry enough about this to put pressure on the US government to fix the problem.

    32. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not as funny a post, but here goes. In many cases the rules are pretty ordinary, but they are EU *directives*; that is, they specify the minimum results needed by law but not how to implement it (that's up to individual states). It is in fact the British themselves that mostly come up with deranged and over-zealous implementations of EU directives in national law, just so the British govt. can continue to be control freaks, but blame the EU.

      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".

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    33. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by neomunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Antigua? Isn't that the country that has recently swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's ghost?

      I overheard a chance conversation between Dick Cheney and (MP&RI)AA's consiglieres, and they're worried about recent evidence that Antigua has nearly completed a WMD program of some kind (probably something to do with coconuts; dangerous biological weapons, those coconuts) and must be brought to compliance.

    34. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    35. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it is. Your country voluntary entered into an international treaty organisation (the WTO), which indicates that your country accepted the obligations set forth in the treaty.
      Generally all treaties are enforced with the understanding of the power of the local governments. If you passed a treaty provision that said no one can say the word Cat ever again hidden somewhere in the text, the countries with free speech clauses in their constitution wouldn't have to comply with it. There are also signing statements to some multilateral treaties where obvious conflicts arise.

      When we signed onto the WTO, granted it was a bunch of democrats in control (1995), it was understood that limitations of a government provided a best effort. What the WTO panel has done is ignore that principle and make a rulling that was abstract to it. They changed the rules midstream.

      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.
      But you see, that's the bitch of the situation. Currently no other US company can can engage in interstate gambling which is the what is banned. Each and every gambling franchise needs to set a local point of business in each state and follow the rules of that state. Any foreign company is free to do the same. There is no discrimination going on here. What the WTO did was say your sovereignty and the sovereignty of the individual states doesn't matter and the limits of power your government body has doesn't matter.

      (and yes, each and every state enjoys an amount of sovereignty which is the way the constitution- the only way the federal government gets it's power, set it up. We are the United "States" of America. A "state" is a country in every other context.)

      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.
      Well, no. It is piracy. The WTO has no power over WIPO treaties and has no power whatsoever to take property from citizens of any country. The WTO has overstepped it's bounds in what should be considered an act of war of Antigua chooses to act on it.

      An embargo would more or less be a response to a threat. What will most likely happen is something similar to Cuba where the US hassles companies doing business with them and makes it illegal to do business with the country. Any exports containing pirated works will probably be confiscated and so on. And that won't be illegal because the WTO doesn't not have any power or provisions to enact concessions over private property or violate other treaties in place. The power to do so just isn't in any of the treaties signed or currently in effect that fall under the WTO umbrella.
    36. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to ask, but what are contracts with the U.S. actually good for when they can weazle out of any obligations by pointing at "the specifics of the type of governing structure", whenever the issue comes up? If the contracts don't have any binding value, then they don't have any value at all.
      They are just as good as any contract with any other country. This isn't anything unique to the US. Sometimes more details are spelled out and sometimes they aren't. The entire idea behind the treaties is honor government structure and limits on the governments who sign to the treaties. When that isn't possible, the treaty takes a back seat.

      Don't negiotate contracts with the U.S. then. There is really no point in fulfilling your side of the contract anyway, because whenever you need the U.S. to fulfill their part, they won't.
      Do your history on this. Like I said, this isn't new, it isn't specific to any country, and to honor the spirit of your comment it would be not to enter "
      "treaties" with any country. And yes, it is important to call it a treaty and not a contract. Calling it a contract allows you to make the mistakes of not treating it as a treaty and taking the wrong context. I don't know if your purposely doing that or if you are doing it without knowing.

      BTW, a treaty is not a contract. A contract is not a treaty. They share similar attributes but aren't the same thing. And even with a contract, there are limits to what you can negotiate away within a legal framework so even then is isn't as cut and dry as you want.

      Pacta sunt servanda. This is also valid for the U.S.. It is solely their problem how they manage to serve them, and how to get the parties within the U.S. to comply. Other countries shouldn't care.
      Lol.. You are erring on the side of ignorance. Good faith does not, I repeat does not mean that all obligations will be satisfied. It means that an honest attempt at satisfying them will proceed. When natural and legal roadblocks prevent obligations from being satisfied, it is still Pacta sunt servanda because a party can only enter to the respect of the power they have or control. This is especially true in treaties peremptory norm is a fundemental process. There are very few new countries where you don't know the limitations of power a governing body has. With 200 or more years of experience no one entering the a treaty with the US should be unaware of any limitations on the powers of the government. If anything, Caveat emptor wouldbe the quote you are looking for. Like I said, this isn't the first time this has happened and it isn't only with the US.
    37. Re:And you are surprised because ... ? by mdarksbane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, I'm not surprised the rest of the world hates the US.

      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."

  3. Hypocricy rampant in the Whitehouse... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    movie at 11:00....

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. Lack of Campaign Funding by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the WTO wants American politicians to listen them, then they need to pony up with the 'campaign funding' like everyone else.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Powerful Countries often ignore the rules by MrSteveSD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Powerful Countries often ignore the rules by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in the 80s the US even ignored a ruling from the World Court to cease it's terrorist activities in Nicaragua The Supreme Court just ruled that U.S. states can now pretty much ignore international law at will. It's not clear to me how this affects the federal obligation to obey treaties (which is pretty clear in the Constitution), but at the state level, we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing.
    2. Re:Powerful Countries often ignore the rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Effect of treaties is NOT clear in the Constitution. In fact, its one of the most long-standing and opaque issues left entirely unresolved (even more so than the 2nd Amendment, or War Powers). Here's a question: If the Senate ratifies a treaty which prohibits free speech, is it Constitutional? A very simplistic interpretation would say so. But of course, that would be absurd. It would be absurd to allow a single House of Congress to do something that otherwise would be impossible without amending the Constitution.

      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.

  6. Well by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  7. Who cares really? by knivesx11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. IP stakes are "increasing"? by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "As the stakes continue to grow in the intellectual property arena,


    growing?

    what fantasy world are these guys living in?

    Sure the number of IP claims are going up, but the value to the public is clearly going down, and p2p isnt going anywhere.

    They can claim "growing stakes" all they wish, but the voracity of their claims extend only as far as the walls of their ivory towers.
    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:IP stakes are "increasing"? by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  9. I'm not sorry to see this. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  10. Autonomy by treesloth · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Autonomy by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  11. Re:Veto Powers Abused too! by treesloth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good. They should use it. Just like every other nation uses their powers in their own self-interest. Why should any nation bow to the UN against their own interest? They shouldn't. The UN exists to server, not to rule. It has precisely no authority.

  12. This is rich by dedazo · · Score: 3, Informative
    From TFA:

    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. As previous coverage of this issue shows, Europe takes a fairly hard-line stance on these payments; a UK car repair chain was even targeted by collecting societies because its mechanics played their radios loud enough that customers could hear them.

    Pretty much the very group of people for whom this is an anathema are taking the opportunity to complain that the US has not implemented this draconian bullshit because, well, it's fun to say "the US ignores what it doesn't like".

    The chuckle factor is definitely high here.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  13. Re:There is no World Government... by Petrushka · · Score: 5, 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,

    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 ...

  14. Re:Uh oh by exploder · · Score: 5, Funny

    URGENT NEWS ALERT! United States applies double standard to international dispute!

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  15. Thank you US government by nrlightfoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    what sig?
    1. Re:Thank you US government by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  16. Re:Uh oh by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Funny

    URGENT NEWS ALERT! Europe upset that over 200 years later, US still won't do what they want.

  17. Better Examples Please by LaskoVortex · · Score: 4, 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:

    • 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.
    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  18. Re:Veto Powers Abused too! by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine if the same philosophy was adopted by everyone. Suddenly I could decide that the law doesn't apply to me and opt out. I could rob banks at will and have a lot of fun. The Banks would want me stopped, but because I've opted out, they would not be able to use the law to stop me. Instead they would have to opt out of the law as well and take matters into their own hands, probably violently.

    That's the kind of situation that currently exists internationally and it's not a good thing.

  19. It's True by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  20. Paying for radio? by Neuticle · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    --
    "Cheeze it!" - Bender
    1. Re:Paying for radio? by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    2. Re:Paying for radio? by jackan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually.... In the US BMI collects royalties from every place that plays music in a money making environment.
      The only way around this is if every song played is live, and by the person that wrote it.

      Regards, Jack

  21. Re:Veto Powers Abused too! by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  22. China crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ...

  23. One Word Response: BANANAS!!! by Ossifer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hello? The EU is so ridiculously hypocritical. Just look at the EU's bananas regime:

    http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/June/United_States_Requests_WTO_Panel_to_Review_European_Unions_Banana_Import_Regime.html

    The EU has been consistently ruled against for well over a decade, and there is still no movement towards compliance.

  24. Right, and that makes it OK? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The WTO doesn't have authority over these cases. The WTO only covers issues of free trade, it doesn't allow for international groups to override local laws that don't impede trade. In the cases cited, the international interests are being provided with the same level of protection as domestic ones are.

    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.

  25. The Republic is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The USA died long ago and it has been a slow gradual death; although, recent years have been moving faster - as if its the last breath.

    Biggest mistake in the constitution has always been the clause about treaties. Treaties should be at least as difficult as passing a law if not more so.

    The constitution is "quaint" and is no longer the law of the land. USA is dead. What we have is USA Inc.

  26. Re:We Should Really Give the WTO by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Completely eliminate the income tax, and, just to be clear, that means the corporate income tax, too. 2) Institute a National sales tax to run the country with. We have enough regressive taxes already, thank you. We don't need to make the system any more regressive, but that's exactly what replacing income tax with sales tax would do: people with lower incomes spend more of their income on taxable goods, while people with higher incomes spend proportionally less (saving or investing the rest).

    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.

    In addition to the cessation of wasting all that money to collect the income tax, all American goods reduce in price dramatically from not having to pay income tax. Er... no they don't. Think about that a little harder. The workers who make those goods still need to buy stuff, but now everything they buy costs more because of higher sales taxes. Labor costs won't drop, because all the money that's been going to income tax now has to go directly to employees who'll use it to pay sales tax.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  27. No. by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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. As previous coverage of this issue shows, Europe takes a fairly hard-line stance on these payments; a UK car repair chain was even targeted by collecting societies because its mechanics played their radios loud enough that customers could hear them.

    I don't own an American restaurant, but in Slashdot's constant whining about the RIAA, one of the whines I hear is that restaurants have to pay copyright holders to play music at their radio, and how the RIAA even pays people to go to restaurants and mark down whether or not their is RIAA music being played. I know that music venues with live bands covering RIAA music are responsible. So I doubt this example is even true.

    And as far as Havana Club goes - I agree the US is in the wrong, and furthermore I'm not a resident of the US and think the Havana Club 7 is about as good as rum gets. However a further issue is that in the US, the copyright was granted to the family that owned the rum, before the Cuban government nationalized the factory and the family fleed to the US. Let me repeat: it was a family business that was stolen by the government. So I think it's reasonable that the family should be able to hold on to (and eventually sell) their rights to the name - or at least, I can sympathize.

    The author of he article doesn't do himself any favors with his tone, rather than an impartial reporter he comes across as a whiny teenager. I guess samzenpus is new, and already I'm rooting for him to go the way of michael and timothy.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  28. Sigh by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Problems like this go back long before Bush and Cheney (though they've refined the whole arrogance/prickishness thing to the status of art): one set of rules for the United States, another set for everybody else. And yet, for some reason, Americans feel hurt and a little bewildered when they find out how unpopular they are in the rest of the world. The comfortable answer is, "Everybody envies us because we're just so absolutely wonderful". The actual answer is that this kind of behaviour makes it easy to be disliked.

    Americans have long made a point of passing themselves off as Canadians when traveling abroad (even to the point of wearing the Maple Leaf). Unfortunately they persist in acting like Americans, which is giving Canadians a bad name, especially in Europe. Or (as has happened to me in England on two occasions) you get politely grilled about All Things Canadian and eventually asked flat-out to show some ID proving you're from the Bigger Colder Place.

    I'm not sure how to fix the problem when the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even believe that there is one, but it really needs to be addressed unless the United States wants to become increasingly isolated and ignored on the international stage.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Sigh by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Classic joke: How do you tell the difference between a Canadian and an American travelling abroad?

      The Canadian only has _one_ maple leaf on his backpack.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  29. Re:Uh oh by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Funny

    URGENT NEWS UPDATE: A ship anchor dragged across communications cables, struggling smaller country, Antigua reports by carrier pigeon that they lost all Internet connectivity. They are considering implementing a RFC 1149 compliant pigeon net as a stop gap.

  30. Re:Here's the BEEF!!! by Anzya · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remind me to send them a thank you letter. If you would have said Brazilian meat then I would have conceded a point.
    I would rather eat raw Swedish chicken than to touch American beef.
    Couldn't find any numbers regarding beef but look at the ammount of salmonella in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis#Incidents_of_salmonellosis, 16% of the chickens had salmonella compared with Sweden where 1% of all the animals got it http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/sjukdomar/salmonellainfektion/, the stats are from the Swedish CDC, unfortunatly I couldn't find the numbers in english on the site.
    In Sweden when ever salmonella is discovered the whole shipment of food is destroyed and if salmonella is found at a farm then all animals are destroyed.

    --
    "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
  31. Re:We Should Really Give the WTO by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

    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. Uhm, most countries work like that - in the UK its called VAT (Value Added Tax) and its the businesses responsibility to collect it and pass it on. No, it doesn't cripple the economy to have a governmental body around to enforce it (Inland Revenue), and yes, it works very well. Its a relatively hard system to cheat because nearly everything in the UK is VATable, so if there are large differences between your incomings and outgoings, it automatically raises a flag (eg - for your example, where did that car go? Its no longer on the dealers books, he has to write the value down on his books somewhere - what happened to it? $11,500 is quite a loss to explain, especially if you are doing it regularly).