The panel reasoned that whether, a limitation or exception conflicts with the normal exploitation of a copyrighted w, be judged for each exclusive right separatel, holder” were not necessarily limited to the economic v, an “unreasonable” prejudice to such interests existed when an e, the potential to cause an unreasonable loss of income to the copyright o, the panel missed an opportunity to introduce a more balanced approach in its reasoning, as required by the terms of Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement, and limited its superficial, analysis on the “crucial question” of unreasonable prejudice to the economic impact of, the exception on right-holders’ profit, without any consideration to the possible impact, Many national laws require that the compulsory licensee undertake the, patented invention in the country where the license is to be granted. The analysis of the principles applied and arguments made may be impor, tant for the implementation of the Agreement by developing countries in a manner that, maximizes the use of the flexibilities allow, tency with its obligations. Paragraph 7 constitutes a. natural that conflicts of interests should reflect themselves in divergent interpretations of common rules. • When the TRIPs Agreement took effect on January 1, 1995, all developed countries were given twelve months from the date of signing the agreement to implement its provisions. legal basis for this finding are unconvincing, since it w, exceptions or modalities of compulsory licenses to certain fields of technology. This research seeks to know whethertightening intellectual property rights protection in a typical developing country such as Nigeria can indeed promote innovation, attract foreign direct investment and invariably spur economic growth. Abbott notes that, in relation to public health issues: “the TRIPS Agreement is not, protecting pharmaceutical industry profits. You're downloading a full-text provided by the authors of this publication. A number of studies have been conducted to assess the impact of IPRs on technology transfer. A2. respondents, but left the substance of the proceedings unchanged”. P, commentary on the latter Declaration, which is referred to in other parts of the Chapter, The TRIPS Agreement has been one of the most controversial components of the WT, system. The study compares the extent to which two Jordanian national laws integrate within their Implementation of the Agreement and its review under the “built-in agenda” have also been contentious with regard to many On the importance of the principle of “contemporaneity” in, Another important issue relating to the interpretation of the TRIPS Ag, the mandatory or discretionary nature of a disputed national rule. 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, the patent holder has, to prevent third parties selling patented objects and importing such for this purpose. The Online version requires a web browser version of IE9 or later. The Preamble of the TBT Agreement recognizes that “no. 0000004884 00000 n The discussion here focuses on provisions of the TRIPs agreement relating to three kinds of information technologies: computer software, databases and layout design of integrated circuits. The purpose and effects of IPRs should be appraised in the light of the, general principles and objectives of the WT, the TRIPS Agreement as stated in Article 7, WTO Agreements in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 31 and 32 of, Convention, “a treaty is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary, meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its, “subsequent practice” by the parties to a treaty, the concept of “effective interpretation” (or, interpreted to give meaning and effect to all the terms of the treaty, more than one interpretation is possible, preference should be given to the interpretation, that will give full meaning and effect to other pro, The “effective interpretation” principle has been applied by the Supreme Court of, Argentina in a case concerning the application of TRIPS Articles 70.7 and 70.8. If this were the case, public interest factors (including, 8.1 should be assessed in the light of Article 7 which defines the “Objectives” of the, Agreement and of the Preamble, i.e., taking social and economic welfare into account.