The duties under TRIPS effect equally to all member states, however developing countries were allowed extra time to enforce the applicable changes to their national laws, in two levels of transition dependant to their level of development. The changeover period for developing countries expired in 2005. The transition period for least developed countries was extended to 2016, and could be extended furthermore.

Developed countries are massive net-exporters of copyright-, patent- and trademark-related royalties. It has therefore been argued that the TRIPS standard of requiring all countries to create strict intellectual property systems will be detrimental to poorer countries' development. Many argue that it is, prima facie, in the strategic interest of most if not all underdeveloped nations to use any flexibility available in TRIPS to write the weakest IP laws possible.

This has not happened in most cases. A 2005 report by the WHO found that many developing countries have not incorporated TRIPS flexibilities (compulsory licensing, parallel importation, limits on data protection, use of broad research and other exceptions to patentability, etc) into their legislation to the extent authorized under Doha.

Post-TRIPS expansionism

The requirements of TRIPS are, from a policy perspective, extremely stringent. Despite this, lobbyists for the industries that benefit from various intellectual property laws have continued since 1994 to campaign to strengthen existing forms of intellectual property and to create new kinds:

• The creation of anti-circumvention laws to protect Digital Rights Management systems. This was achieved through the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Treaty) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

• The desire to further restrict the possibility of compulsory licenses for patents has led to provisions in recent bilateral US trade agreements.

• It is one thing for states to have intellectual property laws on their statutes, and another for governments to enforce them aggressively. This distinction has led to provisions in bilateral agreements, as well as proposals for WIPO and European Union rules on intellectual property enforcement. The 2001 EU Copyright Directive was to implement the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty.

• The wording of Trips 27 of non-discrimination is used to justify an extension of the patent system.

• The campaign for the creation of a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty that would give broadcasters (and possibly webcasters) exclusive rights over the copies of works they have distributed.

Controversy

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBlast.com