For the purposes of dispute resolution under this agreement, and subject to Articles 3 and 4, this agreement is not used to address the issue of the depletion of intellectual property rights. This pressure, which can be bilateral (for example. B under U.S. Trade Representative Special Procedure 301) or multilateral (smaller competing trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has multiplied in recent years due to an effective failure of the WTO negotiations, which halted further progress in their last round of negotiations, the Doha Development Round. 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. TRIPS require Member States to firmly protect intellectual property rights.
For example, TRIPS: since then, the practical effects of TRIPS and its flexibility on access to medicines, both within the business community and among experts in public health, civil society and intergovernmental agencies, have continued to be the subject of heated debate. In particular, a high-level body on access to medicines, convened in 2016 by a high-level body on access to medicines, convened by the UN Secretary-General, openly criticised the negative effects of the “TRIPS plus” provisions contained in regional trade agreements and found that “significant protection of patents and test data for health technologies exceeding minimum standards [of TRIPS] can impede access to health technologies.” As you know, this has been a sensitive point in the negotiations on the agreement, formerly known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with the United States being the main proponent of this type of protection.