Brazilian_Patent_Reform

29
entertainment industries. The introduction of an Agreement with minimum standards
for the granting of intellectual property rights, putting knowledge goods in the trade
agenda, was one of the major goals for the industries in those countries, that also feared
the strengthening of developing countries in the WIPO agenda and their revisionist
initiatives for the intellectual property system.
The GATT/WTO negotiations involved an entire package of matters, and TRIPs was
but one agreement among others such as the ones on textiles, and on agriculture. In
that sense, the common argument is that the justification to the acceptance of the
terms of TRIPs by the developing countries lies exactly on the fact that they had the
“advantageous” terms of the Agriculture Agreement as a counterpart, serving as an
incentive for exports. However, this simplistic explanation for the acceptance of TRIPs’
terms by developing countries as a bargain in regard to the Agriculture Agreement
does not sit well. Evidence points out that the protection of intellectual property rights
has been expanding more and more to agriculture and related goods such as seeds,
plants and agrochemicals like fertilizers and so son, which, ultimately, represents a
dependency from the countries from the South to the technology that is largely retained
by countries in the North.
In that sense, the Gowers Report from the Government of the United Kingdom makes
it clear by stating that, even the minimum standards for intellectual property rights
provided by TRIPs “have proven very burdensome for some developing countries”. 26
TRIPs-plus clauses, that is, clauses that go beyond the minimum standards mandated
by TRIPs, are even more troublesome, such as pipeline patents, patents for new uses and
new forms of known substances, as well as test data exclusivity; subject matters treated
on Chapters 6, 7 and 9, respectively, of this Report.
The insertion of knowledge goods in the trade agenda and the inclusion of enforcement
clauses on TRIPs have arrived to transform the global scenario permanently.
Developed countries, especially the U.S., Canada, Japan and European countries,
understand that the minimum standards for intellectual property rights would lead to
an adequate approach to those rights, favoring innovation and stimulating technology
transfer. On the other hand, developing countries expressed concern on the asymmetries
among countries, chiefly in regard to the national capacity for technology production,
and sought efficient mechanisms for technology transfer. Moreover, they also showed
concerns about ensuring their populations’ access to new technologies. 27
26 See United Kingdom, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, report by the Government of the United
Kingdom, 2006, p. 59.
27 See Jayashree Watal, Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries, Oxford, New
Delhi, 2003.