Unlike other IP agreements, TRIPS have an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. 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. With the TRIPS agreement, intellectual property rights have been integrated into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral IP agreement to date. In 2001, developing countries, fearing that developed countries had insisted on too narrow a reading of the TRIPS trip, launched a series of discussions that culminated in the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration is a WTO DECLARATION that clarifies the scope of the TRIPS agreement, which states, for example, that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the objective of “promoting access to medicines for all”. Ministerial Statement on the Travel Agreement and Public Health Back Up Learned Additional Solicitor-General did not accept the proposed amendments to this Act to keep it in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Nor did he agree to consider including proposed clauses, contained in an earlier draft, that were removed from the immediate bill. Summary: The TRIPS agreement has given all countries some flexibility in the choice of methods and techniques for protecting plant varieties and traditional knowledge of farmers. As a result, most developed countries have well-constructed IP systems in place, with strong patent systems and breeder rights. The main reason developed countries choose protection patents is their technological capabilities and the enormous financial benefits that a patent system should bring. While developing countries do not have financial and technical support. Reaffirming the General Council`s decision of 7-8 February 2000 (WT/GC/M/53) that the review of the TRIPS Agreement should be carried out, among other things, on the impact of the Agreement on the trade and development prospects of developing countries, an agreement reached in 2003 relaxed the requirements of the internal market and allows developing countries to export to other countries with a public health problem until exported drugs are 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.