December 19, 2020 Uncategorized 0

At the time of the negotiations, developing countries strongly opposed TRIPS because they saw it as a breach of their flexibility to develop copyright laws and patents that best match their economies and cultures. Even today, a temporary moratorium applies to least developed countries on the requirement to meet TRIPS standards until 2021. But ironically, because of the few crucial flexibilities that developing countries have gained during these negotiations, they are now often complying with TRIPS standards to resist the pressure to de-inscirle an even higher level of copyright and obtain patent protection. At the end of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994, the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was adopted to regulate aspects of intellectual property at the international level. The inclusion of the TRIPS agreement was due to the lobbying of developed countries to ensure the international protection of intellectual property rights, given their importance for trade and development. The TRIPS agreement is considered by some scientists to be the basis of the international IP system. Section 1 of Part II of the ON TRIPS agreement provides for copyright protection. This impasse has led to a tactic of changing the WTO forum to other forums where higher standards of copyright and patents can be agreed, often between a small group of countries. These standards are commonly referred to as “TRIPS” and, in addition to the TPP, contain WIPO`s copyright contract (which sets TRIPS standards, including restrictions on the use of devices that DRM can circumvent) and ACTA (which has reportedly introduced a number of TRIPS enforcement measures). While this means that there will be no new version of TRIPS in the near future, this remains an important contract for at least three reasons: the fact that so many countries have signed it (158 from 2014), that it is the most important “stick” for the application of copyright and patent standards against these countries, and that it is the main obstacle to the reassessment of these standards – such as the minimum durability period “life over 50 years”. In addition, there are a handful of outstanding issues that are regularly submitted to the TRIPS Council for consideration, in particular “non-counterfeiting complaints”: whether TRIPS disputes over the loss of an expected benefit should be admitted, even if the letter of the TRIPS AGREEMENT has not been effectively violated.

Article 40 of the TRIPS ON Agreement recognizes that certain practices or licensing conditions related to intellectual property rights that limit competition can have negative effects on trade and impede the transfer and dissemination of technology (paragraph 1). Member States may adopt appropriate measures under the other provisions of the agreement to prevent or control abusive and anti-competitive intellectual property licensing practices (paragraph 2). The agreement provides a mechanism by which a country intending to take action against such practices involving companies from another Member State will consult with that other Member State and exchange non-confidential information relevant to the public for the issue in question and other information available to that member, subject to domestic law and the conclusion of satisfactory agreements for both parties regarding compliance with its confidentiality by the member. applicant member (paragraph 3). Similarly, a country whose companies in another Member State are subject to such measures may engage in consultations with that member (point 4). This article is therefore a critical analysis of whether the TRIPS agreement introduced new copyright protection legislation, on which subsequent agreements were based in relation to existing international legal systems. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, it was recognized that the Bern Convention already provided, for the most part, adequate basic standards for copyright protection.