The TRIPS Agreement: Effects on Business and Legal Environments

This report provides an analysis of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, focusing on its implications in the contemporary business and legal world. The report examines the objectives of TRIPS, its impact on various aspects of intellectual property rights like trademarks, industrial designs, and trade secrets. It explores the contrasting views on TRIPS, highlighting the arguments of supporters who believe it enhances foreign direct investments and innovation, and the concerns of those who argue it hinders business development, especially in developing countries. The report discusses the controversial effects of TRIPS on the health sector, particularly regarding pharmaceutical patents and access to medicines in developing nations. It also reviews how developing countries perceive TRIPS as biased towards developed nations, leading to increased costs and challenges in implementation. The report further examines research findings, including the UK government's study on the impact of intellectual property rights on developing countries, and the roles of interest groups like Oxfam in advocating for revisions to the agreement. It analyzes specific country examples, such as Thailand, India, and Tanzania, to highlight the negative aspects of TRIPS implementation and offers recommendations for enhancing the security of the public in the face of these challenges. The report concludes by emphasizing the need for flexible steps and strategic approaches to mitigate risks and ensure the protection of public rights.

Running head: TRIPS
TRIPS
Student Name
University name
Author Name

TRIPS
The contemporary business and legal world have been experiencing an emergence of
various intellectual property rights. The World Trade Organization’s Trade related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights is one of the radical intellectual property rights (Hoekman and
Mavroidis 2015). There are two different opinions about the implementation and effect of TRIPS
on the business services. The General Agreement on Tariffs and had developed the TRIPS
agreement in 1994. The agreement came into action on 1st of January of 1995 (McGovern 2016).
The agreement was to ensure intellectual property rights’ minimum substantive standard. TRIPS
objectives were to reduce the distortions in international trade and implement procedures that
would ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to make the trade effective.
WTO members ensure that the various aspects of intellectual property rights like trademarks,
integrated circuits, industrial designs, trademarks, and trade secrets are protected through TRIPS.
The supporters believe that the TRIPS will help to enhance foreign direct investments,
trade and global innovation. However others do not share the same view by arguing that TRIPS
will hinder the business development. The agreement has a controversial effect on the health
sector. By following this property right the pharmaceuticals, patients and health sector will suffer
in the developing countries. This property right demands patents from all pharmaceuticals as in
developing countries the practice of using less expensive versions of medicines are taken by
thousands of patients. Therefore in the developing countries TRIPS will face various challenges,
like from failing the agreement to be enforced to ignoring the requirements to follow the
agreement. Many researchers have examined its applicability in the developing countries, as they
believe that if the law pressurize the developing countries to follow the same rule the countries
will resist the agreement to get materialized and the objectives will entirely fail in those regions
(Cimoli et al. 2014). The developing countries claim that the TRIPS agreement is biased and

TRIPS
favors the developed countries (Yu 2015). On the one hand it determines benefit for the
transnational corporations and ignores the concerns of the developing countries and it is potential
to cause harm for them. Various costs have been imposed on the developing countries especially
on agricultural inputs, foreign technologies and expensive drugs. Above that the rights fail to
ensure any gain in the longer run in investment or trades. However the developed countries on
the other hand argue that by the agreement there will be and increased opportunity for the
developing countries to attract more investments. TRIPS will also ensure the concerns of
creativity and innovation of local talents and businesses.
The commission built by the UK government conducted a detailed research named
“Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy” on the impact of intellectual
property rights on the developing countries (Armstrong and Schonwetter 2016). It covered
various aspects of the IPRs in the developing countries like agriculture, health, genetic resource,
copyright, internet and patents. The result demonstrated that the present form of the intellectual
property rights fail to meet the needs of the poor countries. It highlighted that TRIPS actually
imposes high cost on most developing countries.
Oxfam, Third World Network or ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’ works as interest groups
working to protect the public rights (Scherer 2013). They have accused TRIPS of enhancing the
public health and agricultural issues in the developing countries. These public groups and the
government of most developing countries are working on establishing a strong demand for the
agreement to be revised. The developing countries have been approaching the WTO for
implementing few changes in the agreement.

TRIPS
For example Kenya has given a request proposal to the World Trade Organization that
they TRIPS must exclude the patenting animals, plants and micro organisms from the agreement
(Munyi 2015). The plant and animal patent is optional officially but followed by Japan, Europe
and united States. Other Latin American Countries like Bolivia, Peru have suggested that WTO
should revise the IPR regulations regarding protecting the traditional knowledge of their
countries and must ensure their development priorities.
In developing countries a report by the World Bank demonstrated that the developed
countries collected 20 billion dollars from the developing countries in technology importing
(Shin, Lee and Park 2016). McCalman highlighted in his report that TRIPS is beneficial for a
handful of developed countries like few European countries and United States of America
(Shugurov 2015). Developing countries like Brazil, South Korea or India will suffer primarily
because of their dependency on technology imports from developed countries. However the
commission claims it benefit in the longer run, but McCalman concluded that the profit will only
be shared by those specific developed nations.
Implementation of TRIPS in the developing countries has resulted in loss of the business profits.
Taking the example of Thailand, it is related to the medicines. This reflects a compromise with
the health needs of the patients. Viewing it from the other perspective, this business loss in the
developing countries pushes them further below the economy (Durand and Fournier 2017).
Moreover, this loss provides the developed countries with more competitive advantage,
aggravating the intensity of competition between the brands in terms of the legal specifications.
This loss, if equated with the illegal activities results in the exposure to illegal activities, which
spoils the reputation of the brands, making the market position vulnerable.

TRIPS
If the example of India is taken, TRIPS relates to the preservation of the authenticity in the
location of the intellectual properties. This preservation is of utmost importance in terms of
securing the identity of the citizens. Violation in this direction reflects identity crisis for the
humans, making their plight “stranded in the island”. Herein the basic rights, which the citizens
possess attains a backseat, which questions their existence (Vita 2013). In such a situation, the
criminals are awarded with various punishments, which puts their citizenship at stake. In view
of these punishments, the aspect intellectual gets contradicted in terms of the matured behavior,
which the law official needs to expose for creating an impression among the general public.
HIV AIDS is an infectious disease and a major concern for the general public. Herein the
example of Tanzania is considered, which is nullified in terms of the generalization of the issue.
Herein lays the immature attitude of the law officials in terms of issuing proper warnings
regarding the undertaking of preventive measures (Esparza 2014). Herein, the implementation
strategies get a question mark in terms of the safety and security of the general public. The
implementation of the medicinal plant is an effective issue, however, lack of oriental approach
towards the implementation nullifies it in terms of ensuring the wellbeing of the patients.
After the review of TRIPS in the countries like India, Thailand and Tanzania, the
negative aspect is highlighted. This implies the lack of understanding needed by the law officials
for the averting the instances of illegal activities and scandals. Moreover, these issues questions
the roles and responsibilities iof the personnel in terms of ensuring the safety of the general
public, which is a shameful act (Esparza 2014). Delving deep into the aspect, being a law
personnel and failing to safeguard the rights of the person stains the reputation of the law
parameter in the society. In response to this, it can be said that flexible steps are needed for
enhancing the security of the public. The need of the hour is to sit in meetings with the agency

TRIPS
partners in terms of making concrete security plans. As a sequential step, evaluation is needed in
terms of assessing its effectiveness in terms of the identified and specified requirements. This
assessment would help the personnel to make estimates regarding implementing firm strategies
in terms of the security of the public domain (Esparza 2014).
One of the other recommendations is training for the employees, which would enhance
their skills, expertise and knowledge about the effective means of maximizing the risk mitigation
strategies. Strategic approach in this direction would enhance the awareness of the law officials
in terms of risks and their mitigation. Within this, one of efficient steps would be to hire more
security officers and give them posting in separate districts. Ensuring security in separate
districts would help the higher authorities to monitor the security of the world (Esparza 2014).
This monitoring is needed for reviewing the performance of the volunteers and appraising them.
Violation in this regards would compel the personnel to indulge in scandalous instances.
Countering this, creating concrete plans prior to the initiation of the tasks would help the
personnel to systematize the activities. This systematizations omits the negativity of TRIPS and
ensures the security aspect for the public. This omition acts as an escape for the people from the
suffocative and claustrophobic existence, which questions their present mode of life. In other
words, ensuring security for the people means providing freedom and adding meaning to their
existence.

TRIPS
Reference
Armstrong, C. and Schonwetter, T., 2016. Conceptualising knowledge governance for
development.
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Maskus, K.E., Okediji, R.L., Reichman, J.H. and Stiglitz, J.E., 2014. The
role of intellectual property rights in developing countries: Some conclusions. Intellectual
property rights: Legal and economic challenges for development, pp.503-513.
Di Vita, G., 2013. The TRIPs agreement and technological innovation. Journal of Policy
Modeling, 35(6), pp.964-977.
Durand, C. and Fournier, S., 2017. Can Geographical Indications Modernize Indonesian and
Vietnamese Agriculture? Analyzing the Role of National and Local Governments and Producers’
Strategies. World Development, 98, pp.93-104.
Esparza, J., 2014. Indian Patent Law: Working within the Trips Agreement Flexibilities to
Provide Pharmaceutical Patent Protection While Protecting Public Health. J. Transnat'l L. &
Pol'y, 24, p.205.
Hoekman, B.M. and Mavroidis, P.C., 2015. World Trade Organization (WTO): Law,
Economics, and Politics. Routledge.
McGovern, E., 2016. International trade regulation (Vol. 2). Globefield Press.
Munyi, P., 2015. Plant variety protection regime in relation to relevant international obligations:
Implications for smallholder farmers in Kenya. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 18(1-
2), pp.65-85.

TRIPS
Scherer, F.M., 2013. Patents, Monopoly Power, and the Pricing of Pharmaceuticals in Low‐
Income Nations. The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation, pp.443-457.
Shin, W., Lee, K. and Park, W.G., 2016. When an Importer's Protection of IPR Interacts with an
Exporter's Level of Technology: Comparing the Impacts on the Exports of the North and
South. The World Economy, 39(6), pp.772-802.
Shugurov, M.V., 2015. TRIPS Agreement, International Technology Transfer and Least
Developed Countries.
Yu, P.K., 2015. TRIPS Wars: Developing Countries Strike Back.