21 Dez Which Of The Following Is An Agreement Regulating Intellectual Property
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. It has therefore been argued that the TRIPS standard, which requires all countries to have strict IP systems in place, will harm the development of the poorest countries.
  It has been argued that it is in the strategic interest of most, if not all, countries to use the flexibility available in TRIPS to pass the weakest IP laws.  The TRIPS agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) from 1986 to 1994. Its reception was the culmination of an intensive lobbying program by the United States, supported by the European Union, Japan and other developed nations. Campaigns of unilateral economic support under the system of generalized preferences and the constraint under Section 301 of the Trade Act have played an important role in combating competing political positions favoured by developing countries such as Brazil, but also Thailand, India and the Caribbean basin countries. The U.S. strategy to link trade policy to intellectual property standards can be attributed to the entrepreneurial spirit of Pfizer executives in the early 1980s, who mobilized companies in the United States and made maximizing intellectual property privileges the top priority of U.S. trade policy (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000, Chapter 7).