The Trips Agreement Related To Which Convention

Compulsory licenses and use by the state without the authorization of the right holder are allowed, but they are subject to conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder. The conditions are mainly laid down in Article 31. These include the obligation in principle to issue such licences only if unsuccessful attempts have been made to acquire a voluntary licence within a reasonable time, on reasonable terms; the obligation to pay, in the circumstances of the case, equitable remuneration, taking into account the economic value of the certificate; and the requirement that decisions be subject to independent judicial or other review by a separate higher authority. Some of these conditions are relaxed when compulsory licences are used to remedy practices deemed to be contrary to competition. Those conditions should be read together with the corresponding provisions of Article 27(1), which provide that the rights conferred by patents must be used without discrimination in the field of technology and that products are imported or manufactured locally. TRIPS conditions that impose more standards beyond TRIPS were also discussed. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to create competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for encouraging protection far beyond the standards imposed by TRIPS. U.S.

free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain have extended patentability by requiring patents to be available for new uses of known products. [39] The TRIPS Agreement allows for the issuance of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The more ad hoc conditions provided for in the free trade agreements between the United States and Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations, antitrust measures and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] This is likely due to the lack of legal and technical expertise needed to develop flexibility implementation legislation, which has often led developing countries to copy directly the intellectual property laws of industrialized countries[17][18] or from the technical assistance of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which, according to critics such as Cory Doctorow, encourage them to implement stronger intellectual property monopolies. Since the entry into force of TRIPS, it has been the subject of criticism from developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also see TRIPS as bad policy. The wealth concentration effects of TRIPS (the movement of money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent holders in developed countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticism. Other criticisms focused on TRIPS` failure to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, an advantage advanced by WTO members before the agreement was created.