We live in a world after TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Almost all members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have had to reform their intellectual property laws to meet the minimum standards of protection imposed by TRIPS.  Article 40 of the TRIPS ON Agreement recognizes that certain practices or licensing conditions related to intellectual property rights that limit competition can have negative effects on trade and impede the transfer and dissemination of technologies (paragraph 1). Member States may adopt appropriate measures under the other provisions of the agreement to prevent or control abusive and anti-competitive intellectual property licensing practices (paragraph 2). The agreement provides a mechanism by which a country intending to take action against such practices involving companies from another Member State will consult with that other Member State and exchange non-confidential information relevant to the public for the issue in question and other information available to that member, subject to domestic law and the conclusion of satisfactory agreements for both parties regarding compliance with its confidentiality by the member. applicant member (paragraph 3). Similarly, a country whose companies in another Member State are subject to such measures may engage in consultations with that member (point 4).  In this sense, intellectual property should be seen as a means of effective technology transfer and not as a means of securing territorial monopolies in as many countries as possible. This last point was proposed by Brazil on 30 September 2004 to the WIPO General Assembly at the presentation of the development programme proposal.
Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the WTO is not the most convenient place (the most levelled negotiating field) to promote and discuss the future of IP systems. Nevertheless, it seems impossible at this stage to think about changing this location, and it is therefore essential for any rights manufacturer or free trade negotiator to take into account the above acute differences and to maintain the potential pitfalls that may result from the indiscriminate implementation of certain recommendations in international uniform, which can have unprecedented negative effects on the economy and social well-being of individuals . As noted above, the ON TRIPS agreement imposes a relatively high minimum level of intellectual property on all WTO members. But this standard is far from a ceiling and has been seen by the United States, the European Union and Japan as a springboard to impose a stronger and broader global IP system, to ensure their control over the knowledge economy  and as a means of eliminating the economic impact of piracy. Since the TRIPS agreement came into force, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is generally opposed to the WTO, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS policy as a bad policy. The effects of the concentration of WEALTH of TRIPS (money from people in developing countries for copyright and patent holders in industrialized countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticisms. Other critics have focused on the inability of trips trips to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, a benefit that WTO members achieved prior to the creation of the agreement.