Article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out the conditions for the use of compulsory licences by Member States. It begins with the finding” “If a member`s right authorizes the use of the subject of the patent without the authorization of the patent holder” (6) with respect to compulsory licences. The language of the article clearly allows Member States to adopt national intellectual property legislation without any mandatory import provision, while complying with the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration and the 30 August 2003 decision. The concept of compulsory licensing is of little importance to public health unless the only nations that introduce it do not have the capacity to produce pharmaceuticals. While it is true that parallel imports are also classified as an option and not an obligation, it is not a serious problem, because for a country to benefit from parallel imports, it is sufficient to amend its own national legislation to allow it; it does not depend on the cooperation of other nations. On the other hand, a developing country can only benefit from compulsory licensing if the most developed countries transpose it into their own legislation. The TRIPS deal is the soft stain on the boxing bag that is the World Trade Organization. Right or not, the TRIPS agreement is supposed to be a monstrosity of modern capitalism. Noam Chomsky, a renowned academic: “There is nothing liberal about [the TRIPS agreement]. It is a highly protected system that aims to ensure that private tyranny, what businesses are, monopolizes the technology and knowledge of the future. (14) Dr.
Zafar Mirza, executive coordinator of The Network, a Pakistani health lobby group, asks: “You talk about the harmonization of trade policy, but no one says a word about harmonizing socio-economic conditions in the world.” All countries are at different stages of development, how could they be governed under the same right? (15) These comments are in stark contradiction to those cited above by senior officials. Why is one group so strongly opposed to the TRIPS agreement when another seems to be a surefire support? The second part of this document is intended to reconcile these two points of view. 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. The World Bank`s statements indicate that TRIPS have clearly not accelerated investment in low-income countries, whereas they may have done so for middle-income countries.  As part of TRIPS, long periods of patent validity were examined to determine the excessive slowdown in generic drug entry and competition.