The TRIPS Agreement requires Member States to ensure strong protection of intellectual property rights. For example, in the context of TRIPS: the general objectives of the TRIPS Agreement are contained in the preamble to the Agreement, which reflects the fundamental objectives of the Uruguay Round negotiations set out in the TRIPS area by the Punta del Este Declaration of 1986 and the mid-term review of 1988/89. These objectives include reducing distortions and barriers to international trade, promoting effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and ensuring that enforcement measures and procedures for intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade. Those objectives should be read in conjunction with Article 7 (Objectives), according to which the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual benefit of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic well-being — and to a balance of rights and obligations. Article 8, entitled “Principles”, recognizes the right of Members to take measures for reasons of public health and other reasons of public interest and to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The terms of the TRIPS Plus Agreement that prescribe standards other than TRIPS were also discussed. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for pushing protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS Agreement. U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain have expanded patentability by requiring patents to be available for new uses of known products.

[39] The TRIPS Agreement allows for compulsory licensing at a country`s discretion. U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Jordan, Singapore, and Vietnam have limited the application of compulsory licenses to emergencies, antitrust remedies, and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] Does the TRIPS Agreement require fundamental deviations from India`s existing intellectual property protection system? Article 10 of the Convention provides: “(1) Computer programs, whether in source code or subject matter, are protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971). 2. Compilations of data or other elements, machine-readable or otherwise, which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their content, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. This protection, which does not extend to the data or the material itself, does not affect the copyright that exists in the data or the material itself. 52The empirical evidence available in developed countries does not support the causal chains of the above analysis. Important surveys of American industry, conducted by Mansfield et al. (1977) and Levin et al.

(1987), patents under various instruments as a method of appropriating intellectual property returns (except in the case of medicines) rank quite low. .