In addition to the basic intellectual property standards set out in the TRIPS agreement, many nations have committed to bilateral agreements to adopt a higher level of protection. This collection of standards, known as TRIPS or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.  One of the general objectives of these agreements is to provide a broad package of commentary on the potentially harmful effects of different aspects of the TRIPS package on public health and development, particularly in low- and middle-income countries8-10. The United Nations (UN) clearly recognizes this. In 2001, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declared that national and international IP regimes must comply with state human rights obligations11. In 2011, the UN General Assembly recognized the need to maintain the FLEXIBILITY of TRIPS to facilitate measures to improve access to health care, and UN member states agreed that the intellectual property rights provisions contained in trade agreements should not undermine these flexibilities.12 Could countries take a better approach to the implementation process? The situation is becoming increasingly complex today due to the many bilateral free trade agreements concluded, often with membership commitments plus.10,46 From an Australian perspective, for example, while TRIPS does not include restrictions on the grounds of compulsory licensing, Article 17.9.7 (b) of the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) limits the reasons for the use of non-commercial public use cases. , national emergencies, other extreme emergency situations and anti-competitive behaviour. While this list probably covers most of the circumstances in which Australian companies may be invited to provide medicines to those in need in other countries, the reason for limiting compulsory licences to these grounds is unclear47. limits the ability of the Australian Parliament to amend legislation in the future. 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. In particular, the illegality of preclinical testing or the presentation of samples to be authorized until a patent expires have been accused of encouraging the growth of certain multinationals and not producers in developing countries.