Robert Wade (2003) suggests that this is a clear “reduction of the development space”: a reduction in the political autonomy of states, which denies them the development paths that others have taken before them. Moreover, the agreement is “at points where indeterminacy benefits industrialized countries and at specific points where accuracy works against developing countries” (Wade, 2003: 630). The commitments of developing countries and the rights of developed countries are far more applicable than the development rights and duties of developed countries. For example, despite the clearly defined objective of Article 66.2 on technology transfer, there is little evidence of sustained efforts by developed countries to meet these commitments (Moon, 2008). TRIPS is not the first international IP agreement; the Paris Convention (patents), the Madrid system (brands) and the Berne Convention (copyright) have existed since the end of the 19th trip, but can be understood as a fundamental break in many respects. THE TRIPS is much deeper and granular, which places external restrictions at much more dimensions of national IP policy than previous agreements. In addition to defining common commitments on basic principles, as previous international agreements have done, TRIPS contains, in a detailed set of articles, rules and prohibitions specific to national policy.1 Regardless of its title, TRIPS deals with national IP measures, whether or not they are “trade-related” or not. TRIPS are also stronger and more restrictive than previous agreements because the costs of non-compliance are significant. Since the inclusion of TRIPS in the WTO means that it is subject to the WTO`s dispute settlement system, which allows trade sanctions as a sanction against countries considered a violation of its rules, non-compliance with the rules can have painful economic consequences. The definition of comprehensive and binding rules for national IP policy marks a shift from “international” to “global” ip governance (Maskus, 2014); Drahos, 1997) and, importantly, an important step towards comprehensive harmonization of national policies and practices for the creation and protection of intellectual property rights. It is also essential to point out that the concept of intellectual property, as contained in the TRIPS AGREEMENT, is based on a particular interpretation of intellectual property rights that has developed in recent decades within the Western tradition.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the G77 first focused on intellectual property as an international problem, when they attempted, as part of the advance of a new international economic order, to weaken the protection of existing intellectual property rights in order to reduce the technological deficit with industrialized countries (May and May 2006: 155-156).