Decision 94/800/EC on the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the agreements reached in the uruguay round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), which have been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organisations since the TRIPS agreement came into force. 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. The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into force in 1995 as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. TRIPS integrates and builds on the latest versions of primary IP agreements managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property and the Bern Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. An agreement reached in 2003 relaxed domestic market requirements and allows developing countries to export to other countries with a public health problem as long as exported drugs are not 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. 2. For the purposes of this agreement, the concept of intellectual property applies to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 to 7 of Part II. The 2002 Doha Declaration confirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary steps to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as mandatory licensing, are almost impossible to obtain. The least developed countries, in particular, have made their young domestic manufacturing and technological industries proof of the infallible policy. The basic principles are those of national treatment and the most favoured nation. This means that WTO members should not treat nationals of other Member States less favourably than their own nationals. In addition, any benefit granted to nationals of another Member State must also be granted without delay and without conditions to nationals of all other Member States, even if it is a more favourable treatment than that granted to their own nationals.
The protection and respect of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technologies, to the mutual interest of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a way that promotes social and economic well-being, and to the balance of rights and obligations.