Trips Agreement Covers

Trips-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified. [38] 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. [39] The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The terms of trips plus in the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of mandatory licences to emergencies, remedies for cartels and abuse of dominance, and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] The provisions relating to the protection of performers, phonograms and broadcasters are set out in section 14.

In accordance with Article 14.1, interpreters have the option of preventing unauthorized fixation of their performance on a phonogram (for example. B, recording a live musical performance). The right to attach only acoustic and non-audiovisual bindings. Interpreters must also be able to prevent the reproduction of such fixations. They also have the ability to prevent unauthorized wireless broadcasting and the public broadcast of their live performances. 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. [10] Drugs exported under such regulations may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting the markets of industrialized countries. 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.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.