This paragraph has been described as a Doha contract. Although it did not reach the deadline set by the transfer at the end of 2002, the WTO has reached concrete agreement on this issue, as outlined below. This argument has been used by some opponents[5] of software patents to assert that software patents are not authorized by the TRIPS agreement. [6] TRIPS manuals do not see any conflict, z.B. notes Correa-Yusuf[7] that software patents complement copyright because copyright does not protect the underlying ideas. On 14 June 1988, the Intellectual Property Commission published a legislative proposal: “Basic Framework of GATT Provisions on Intellectual Property: Statement of Views of the European, Japanese and United States Business Communities.” This basic framework was described by Edmund Pratt as a “multilateral plan” for intellectual property and trade negotiations. The framework called for the elimination of piracy, the criminalization of intellectual property rights violations, severe restrictions on exceptions to the public interest in intellectual property rights, and the adoption of strict ip procedures. [23] The ON TRIPS agreement is a minimum standard agreement that allows members to more broadly protect intellectual property protection on demand. Members are free to determine the appropriate method of transposing the provisions of the agreement into their own legal and practical order. In 2002, the vast majority of states took steps to allay fears about the degradation of traditional cultures and the abuse of traditional knowledge.

Bonn`s guidelines on access to genetic resources and the equitable and equitable sharing of the benefits of their use were in line with the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted by the majority of states. The main objectives of the convention were to “preserve biodiversity, to make sustainable use of its components and to share fairly and equitably the views of the use of genetic resources.” At the Conference of the Parties (COP) – the entire group of conventionalists responsible for overseeing their implementation and implementation – cbD signatories stressed that the terms of trips undermined these objectives. For example, trips makes no mention of the sharing of benefits from patenting biogenetic resources and has no requirement to protect indigenous knowledge or even disclose the sources of that knowledge. For example, the agreement does not require the division of unwritten traditional knowledge into “state of the art,” which means that it can be patented in this original form, which means that the control rights of that knowledge fall into the hands of the individual in the developed country who discovers it and patents it, not the local author. The so-called “30 August” exemption allowed the granting of a compulsory licence for the provision of the necessary medicine to a developing country by a developed country, provided that the patented drug is authorised in the developed jurisdiction and that there is evidence of 1) a public health problem; 2) the absence or absence of the pharmaceutical industry in the importing country; 3) that the drug provided under compulsory licence is used exclusively for public and commercial purposes.