[pas]

Yes, I watch LWT, I'm familiar with the Philip Morris' crazy carnival through arbitration tribunals, but they are just grasping at straws.

http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-vs-australia-philip-m...

The Uruguay v Philip Morris is the same, they claim that they have a right to use their trademark on packages. Might be true, the tribunal will find out. Still Uruguay can still ban tobacco altogether.

This is the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit. It's part of the system, and it's okay. It gives transparency to the whole big companies (investors) and even bigger organizations (states) interactions, and tries to keep things equal and fair, all in all objective and unbiased.

Eventually Philip Morris will lose. (Though there might not be a loser-pays scheme in force for this case, but in general it's up to the treaty to establish the rules of arbitration, plus usually the tribunal itself has such powers, but in the future more and more cases will follow the UNCITRAL model, which do require the loser to pay for the costs of litigation.

https://books.google.com/books?id=h1H8Er1Y8X8C&pg=PA108&lpg=...

)