The Effects of TRIPs on developing countries with particular emphasiss on the pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract

This dissertation explores the effects of the Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights Agreement ('the TRIPs Agreement') on developing countries with particular emphasis on the pharmaceutical industry. The methodology used is that of analysing secondary materials. India and South Africa are used as 'case studies 'in order to assess these effects. Before TRIPs, there was widespread piracy,copying and free riding of intellectual property rights in developing countries. The producers of the pirated and copied goods were mainly from developed countries and they were losing profits by the billions . The United States decided to demand for increased international property rights under the auspices of WTO. After eight years of negotiations, the TRIPs Agreement was signed by all member countries of the WTO.The blatant piracy of intellectual property is obviously wrong and should be prohibited. Therefore the need for increased of intellectual property protection through TRIPs is understandable. However a problem arises is in the pharmaceutical industry; due to increased patent protection , pharmaceutical products and process will become more expensive than they were in developing countries before TRIPs. The effect is that new drugs are inaccessible to the poor citizens of developing countries. This dissertation reaches a conclusion on how a balance is going to be achieved between the contrasting needs for legitimate intellectual protection and access pharmaceutical products .India had a flourishing generic industry before TRIPs. The effect of the Agreement will be to wipe a high percentage ofthis industry out of business . However a research-based industry may develop due to increased patent protection. The South African Government introduced drastic measures in 1997 in an attempt to provide cheap drugs for its dying AIDS patients. A number of international pharmaceutical manufacturing companies brought an action against South Africa claiming that this legislation, the Medicines and Related Substances Control