Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi

Distorted Architecture Of International Intellectual Property Regime And ...Taking this fact into consideration, WTO Agreements should be seenas a package deal. Under this regime, participating countries did not lookfor positive net benefits for each individual agreement; rather they tried tomaximize their total net benefit from the package of agreements. In otherwords, the final deal can be explained by the cross sectoral gains not by mutualbenefits in individual agreements.With regard to the TRIPS Agreement, while developed countriesreceived stronger protection for intellectual property rights and a reductionin restrictions over foreign direct investment, less-developed countries gotlower tariffs on textiles and agriculture. More importantly, they obtained aprotection against unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States and otherdeveloped countries. 45Although there were significant differences in bargaining powers of theparties, it can be said that each group of countries could obtain what theyassumed to be in their self-interests. For less-developed countries, textilesand agriculture are among the most important sectors even today, while theintellectual property related goods and services are essential for developedcountries 46 .On the other hand, one of the motivations for less-developed countriesto reach a deal through Uruguay Round negotiations was their seeking for arelief from the unilateral trade sanctions of the United States. In 1988 Congressamended the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. The section 301 of the act, which is knownas “Special 301”, requires the United States Trade Representative (USTR)to identify foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection ofintellectual property rights or deny American intellectual property goods fairor equitable market access. 47 To be able to escape from the threat of unilateral45MAY, p.71 and YU, Trips, p.371. YU underlines the difference between the protection obtainedby the parties through the TRIPS Agreement and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.He explains that:“While developed countries have to “phase out” their quotas on the mostsensitive items of textiles and clothing on the last day of the ten-year transitionalperiod, less developed countries are required to “phase in” product patents forpharmaceuticals on the fi rst day of the identical transitional period. In addition,although the TRIPs Agreement required less developed countries to strengthenintellectual property protection, it guaranteed the prospects of neither technicalassistance from developed countries nor increased foreign investment.”46YU, Trips, p.372.47DRAHOS, Developing Countries, p.773.Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi C. XV, Y. 2011, Sa. 4 37