The absence of a global sovereign makes a global IPRs system problematic. Every nation has completely different intellectual property laws, making cooperation troublesome, though several international IPRs agreements have been developed. Which nation's standards should apply? Most international agreements take a national approach in that a country agrees to produce foreign innovators with the identical protection provided to its domestic citizens. Creators of intellectual property generally must obtain protection separately in each jurisdiction, a cumbersome process.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides support for the international intellectual property system. Its mission is "to market through international cooperation the creation, dissemination, use and protection of works of the human mind for the economic, cultural and social progress of all mankind."
Globalization has increased the need for more international IPRs coordination. Multinational organizations seek consistent laws across borders and inventors want universal protection for his or her inventions. The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) tries to supply a more customary IPRs system and sets minimum protection that has got to be provided by all member states.
Ethical problems become particularly necessary at the international level (Rischard 2002). Some fear that increasing IPRs protection will increase inequities between the developed and the developing world. Others are concerned that IPRs deny access to products desperately required by the poor or powerless. Still others believe adequate IPRs standards are essential to promoting technology transfer and foreign investment.
IPRs will deny access to essential merchandise and data to people who need them most, notably in developing countries. Drug analysis and development is extremely expensive, and pharmaceutical countries price medicine to recoup expenses and create a profit. No one else is allowed to manufacture drugs protected below patents. Those who would like the drugs usually have very little money. Is it fair to allow people to die as a result of they can not afford drugs that might prolong their lives?
The TRIPS Agreement allows for compulsory licenses, an exception to IPRs in special cases such as emergencies, that provide developing countries access to essential drugs for major health issues such as HIV/AIDS or malaria. Such policies could have a boomerang effect; pharmaceutical companies might be less doubtless to invest in research to develop drugs for conditions found primarily in poor countries if there's no profit to be made. The answer to the drug access downside could be better addressed by turning to solutions unrelated to intellectual property rights, like foreign aid. Some pharmaceutical companies have created drugs offered at drastically reduced rates to those who cannot afford them.
Inspiration for brand spanking new merchandise typically comes from local or ancient knowledge. Who ought to profit when a drug company develops a replacement drug based on knowledge concerning the properties of a plant gained from an indigenous tribe in a remote region? Is the company that developed a industrial drug entitled to all or any the profits or should it share revenues with the folks who provided the knowledge or with the country from which the plants are harvested?
Author Resource:
Adam has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in International Intellectual Property Rights
You can also check out his latest website about
Leica Digital Cameras Which reviews and lists the best
Leica Minilux
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")