A permanent end to right to repair for US tractor company?

[cdev]

Christmas may have come early for the John Deere company in the form of an ideal test case that could permanently award the US tractor company with a binding international law  victory against Russian "owners" who want information on how to restore the functionality of $300000 combines leased by Ukrainian farmers but expropriated by the Russians in the Crimea area, "the world's breadbasket".

The undemocratic WTO, now the world's trade court, above all nations and other laws, can decide test cases such as the above with no appeal possible.

Was this whole thing planned out in advance, like has been advanced in a theory by A respected German economist and blogger?

Like the Indian demonetization? Russia is now claiming that only they can legally repair Soviet era helicopters.. See https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/02/02/ukraine-claims-russia-blackmailing-potential-defense-customers/

[bdunham7]

The undemocratic WTO, now the world's trade court, above all nations and other laws, can decide test cases such as the above with no appeal possible.

I don't think you understand the scope and function of the WTO.  They have no authority to 'decide' any such 'case' between the parties you mention.  Nor would any sane court (not ruling out insane courts, mind you) ever rule on such a case in a way that would be broadly precedential.  I don't know what venue this might appear in, but a US court would probably be inclined to rule that the so-called owners simply don't have standing to bring the case and just dismiss it on that basis.  A Russian court, well good luck enforcing their judgment against John Deere.

[cdev]

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

[cdev]

I think youre likely wrong. (but I don't know, not being the WTO or an attorney)  Why dont you ask trade law experts?

US courts decide political issues, in the US between US citizens and companies, only..  for example, most of what we think of as national issues, gay marriage, abortions, holidays, everything that doesnt involve international commerce...

but WTO courts decide economic matters between countries All three nations have argued before its tribunals and dispute settlement body.. Their word is final and there is no appeal. . .

The undemocratic WTO, now the world's trade court, above all nations and other laws, can decide test cases such as the above with no appeal possible.

I don't think you understand the scope and function of the WTO.  They have no authority to 'decide' any such 'case' between the parties you mention.  Nor would any sane court (not ruling out insane courts, mind you) ever rule on such a case in a way that would be broadly precedential.  I don't know what venue this might appear in, but a US court would probably be inclined to rule that the so-called owners simply don't have standing to bring the case and just dismiss it on that basis.  A Russian court, well good luck enforcing their judgment against John Deere.

Countries often break WTO law.. But then they get sued..   For example, because it sells insurance, the UK's NHS is breaking WTO law.. And has been ever since they left the EU. They have to update their domestic regulation as they agreed to in 1995. Everybody in the UK is going to need a raise to afford health insurance.  Their NHS is probably going to be seen as a trade barrier. For example, Indian insurance companies often sell health inurance a-la-carte..Its very profitable.. Isnt that the whole point, profit? It certainly is. There are other pending disputes that are important, and undecided..  what would be the applicable legal precedent when it comes to the booty of wars?

[Haenk]

I think these are two very different cases.
Assuming the farming equipment is rented/leased/financed it is still in owned by the manufacturer/financial institute. The customer (involuntarily) breached their contract, so the owner has decided to lock down the equipment.
Assuming the farming equipment is owned by the farmer, I guess it's locked down by request or as good measure, as it is now stolen goods.

The dispute concerning aircraft repairs is a question of intellectual property - which company/country is the legal follow-up to the former owner (Soviet Union/soviet era company). We just don't know, so we can't judge on the little known facts. Might also be a question of certified avionics parts.
The WTO might create a court case, if both parties agree to follow the WTO rules and rulings. This is a complicated and expensive process which can take years.

[bdunham7]

I think youre likely wrong.

I assure you I'm not. 

but WTO courts decide economic matters between countries

Well, there you go!  You understand that Chechyan tractor thieves and John Deere Inc. are not parties who have standing or can be called before the WTO.  Now if you want to continue on and fantasize that Russia would actually bring a WTO case against the US over a case like this, then you'll have to study further and learn 1) on what basis a competent party can bring a case before the WTO, 2) what remedies the WTO has the authority to order and 3) the precedential value of such decisions either in the WTO or other courts.

In case you aren't up for studying, the (relevant) quick answers are 1) it's complicated  2) no authority to order John Deere to do anything and 3) not a binding precedent anywhere except the WTO itself might feel obligated to render similar decisions in cases involving similar facts, but they still would not be obligated to order similar remedies. 

[bdunham7]

The dispute concerning aircraft repairs is a question of intellectual property

How so?

[eugene]

I think these are two very different cases.
Assuming the farming equipment is rented/leased/financed it is still in owned by the manufacturer/financial institute. The customer (involuntarily) breached their contract, so the owner has decided to lock down the equipment.
Assuming the farming equipment is owned by the farmer, I guess it's locked down by request or as good measure, as it is now stolen goods.

Quoted for truth.

There's a huge difference between having the liberty to do what you want with something that you own outright, and not having the right to muck-up something that you only own a small fraction of due to financing or leasing.

Stolen property is a another discussion.

Laws should, I think, be nothing more than common sense and decency for people that don't have any of their own. Neither are in danger here. Not by the WTO or any other organization that we might mistake for a government or authority.

[magic]

The equipment was brand new and stolen from the dealership, which you would know if the OP weren't starting a fresh thread on this topic every 10 hours (and in a wrong section of the forum at that).

I'm reporting this rubbish.

[cdev]

I just read a story that leads me to believe the entire wheat harvest is in danger of being "stolen".. Does might make right?

The countries that have come out ahead in these contests probably argues that it does, but I dont know..

As is the country, which would make the property Russia's I think is likely to be their argument, because they took it in a war.. They "Won" it I'm sure they argue..
Why lots of the United States was "won" similarly in wars.. Some say it was stolen. The people who lived on it died?

Smallpox certainly was a factor.. ...  Manhattan Island was swampy... It was bought according to a plaque somewhere around here.. , from the (nomadic) Lenni Lenape tribe by the Dutch.. they paid around $23 in beads etc.   The sellers may not have even lived in the area..


We can be certain lawyers are involved..
I'm sure software is involved... I have a feeling its going to get complicated.. 

[bdunham7]

I just read a story that leads me to believe the entire wheat harvest is in danger of being "stolen"..

Probably true, there seems to be a bit of looting going on.  There will always be those that take advantage of chaos, whether in Ukraine or Los Angeles.

As is the country, which would make the property Russia's I think is likely to be their argument, because they took it in a war.. They "Won" it I'm sure they argue..
Why lots of the United States was "won" similarly in wars.. Some say it was stolem...  Manhattanj was bought according to a plaque, from the (nomadic) Lenni Lenape tribe by the Dutch.. they paid around $23 in beads etc.   The sellers may not have even lived in the area..

And does 'winning it in a war' give rise to a cognizable WTO claim??  I'll admit I don't know, the question has never come up AFAIK.  But I'm pretty sure the answer will be no. 

[cdev]

Look up "customary International law"   Its all stuff like this. Who owns what, who owns who.. and so on.

"customary International law"  The law may see the Russians as the tractors owners, because they took it in a war?  I dont know.

I'm sure they love this "natural calamity" angle because it makes some of them look good..

WTO claims involve any questions that come up in trade..   Look at the history of Africa, for example... and European expansions.. Since Crimea is the big booty, of grain growing,  of course its going to be the subject of disputes...  Just like Jason and the ARgonauts and the story of what the Golden Fleece was...

A new method of prospecting for gold...   Russians seem to be trying to steal the wheat harvest,

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/01/europe/russia-farm-vehicles-ukraine-disabled-melitopol-intl/index.html

[EEVblog]

cdev, please stop posting political thread in the disguise of on-topic thing like right to repair.
Thread locked.