National courts aren't the forums I am really concerned about here. Its their task merely to make sure that the national laws conform to the agreements, and if they don't to rule against them.
Policy on things that impact international trade are often framed as not their jurisdiction. Its very hard to say about something like this. If it doesnt effect international trade, or has been explicitly excluded, like the US did with trading in onion futures, then you are okay. If we were arguing about onion futures, the WTO and its various bodies and panels and similar US style agreements that are everything in by default, if onion futures had been carved out of them, would have
no jurisdiction.
But if not, they would, and decisions in them would preempt national laws.
Basically, the big problem is that similar to the expansion of the EU, the trade rules on services, attempt to create a means by which corporations that span borders, can utilize whichever of their workers they want, elsewhere, without red tape. Right now, its alleged that red tape is preventing these changes which could save the world millions of dollars (actually they claim this would save much more but I dont want to scare you) currently paid to powerful special interest groups like unions and professionals in places like the US and other developed countries. You should read the developing countries positions, straight from the sources, rather than having me explain them. To do that you need to go to the various organizations arguing their points of view. Basically, they want to get rich too, they say that the wealthy countries have been reaping all the benefits of world trade and they have been stuck with all these requirements to privatize all their public services and end subsidies to various groups, such as the poor, they have made this huge sacrifice *sob* and we have been getting rich leaving their firms out of the markets that they claim signing the agreement entitles them to serve, markets which they know they can win bids for, serve for less, because they pay so little. (Under WTO law that will entitle them to the work. That is unless its automated or the rich in some other poor country underbid them)
the international fora cant change national laws, just assess countries with penalties worth millions or billions of euros, zlotleys, dollars or whatever until they conform.
What I am worried about is the problem of standing. People - and constructs like the GPL, may not even exist in these fora, except as markets the rights to whom are bought and sold.
Not existing, we have no voice.
Courts upheld GPL a number of times, so we are all good here.
Do you know anything about the so called "Third World Debt"? Basically, there is a scheme that they have been cooking up since the 80s, that was originally proposed simply as a way to 'increase efficiency' and double profits for the owners, and also some middlemen, its supposed to keep friendly governments in power, prevent the poor (many would also say corrupt) nations from defaulting on their debts.
Its going to be the largest wealth transfer in history. they clain downward but in fact it is all upward. Well, what if the firms who will be getting all those jobs, who frame it as the repayment of a debt that magically the developed nations now are supposed to owe them, claim that the GPL stands in the way of their taking full advantage of this deal? Right now everybody has access to all this software and everybody is improving it, where is the profit and especially exclusivity in that? Just like they argue they have a legal and moral right to take advantage of their #1 advantage, really low wages, they will probably argue that any rule which prevents these giant firms from making exclusive use of the software and tools they develop, even if built on top of GPLed software, must be theirs alone, because otherwise they wouldn't make the profits they claim they are entitled to, as the repayment of this debt.
They may well claim these profits will be their entitlement, their payback for participating in the world trade agenda. Ive been told many times by people arguing their points of view that this was the case, some right wing free trade think tanks here in the US also take this view, after all, businesses will save a lot of money they are currently almost represented as throwing away by paying wages that are much higher than the global average) but Ive also been told by authoritative experts that their interpretation of these deals was faulty, that nobody promised them all this, unless the whole deal was wrapped up - only then. Google the phrase "single undertaking".
In short, there is this huge controversy just simmering under the radar for everybody, which is the real trade dispute, the one they don't want to discuss. Its described as a very sensitive subject.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
