Paris Convention And Trips Agreementadmin
As in the main existing intellectual property conventions, the fundamental obligation of each Member State is to grant people in other Member States the treatment of intellectual property protection under the Convention. Section 1.3 specifies who these people are. These persons are referred to as nationals, but include individuals or legal entities who have close ties to other members without necessarily being nationals. The criteria for determining who should therefore benefit from the treatment provided by the agreement are the criteria established for this purpose in WIPO`s major ip agreements, which naturally apply to all WTO members, whether or not they are parties to those agreements. These conventions are the Paris Convention, the Bern Convention, the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, the producers of phonograms and broadcasters (Rome Convention) and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of integrated circuits (IPIC Treaty). Since the TRIPS agreement came into force, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is generally opposed to the WTO, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS policy as a bad policy. The effects of the concentration of WEALTH of TRIPS (money from people in developing countries for copyright and patent holders in industrialized countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticisms. Other critics have focused on the inability of trips trips to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, a benefit that WTO members achieved prior to the creation of the agreement. The World Bank`s statements indicate that TRIPS have clearly not accelerated investment in low-income countries, whereas they may have done so for middle-income countries.  As part of TRIPS, long periods of patent validity were examined to determine the excessive slowdown in generic drug entry and competition. In particular, the illegality of preclinical testing or the presentation of samples to be authorized until a patent expires have been accused of encouraging the growth of certain multinationals and not producers in developing countries. An agreement reached in 2003 relaxed domestic market requirements and allows developing countries to export to other countries with a public health problem as long as exported drugs are not part of a trade or industrial policy.
 Drugs exported under such regulations may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting the markets of industrialized countries. Trips-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified.  These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products.  The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country.