This is a proposal that is: – convenient for the developed world

This proposal is acceptable to those who believe the developed world is doing much of the heavy lifting in encouraging innovation and that there are a lot of free riders (benefitting from the technology without paying for it). Many countries have incorporated the TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization within their laws, but they are very lax internally with respect to its enforcement (see an explanation for this within the post about the effectiveness of the regulation). This creates a free rider problem that is profoundly unfair for those who do pay, since we should all share the burden of spurring innovation in a cooperative and proportional manner. This is at the heart of the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA PROPOSAL; a matter of justice for the developed world and an issue that not addressed impedes cooperation and harmonization, both goals of the developed world in the international arena (the lack of proportionality, proportionality being a cornerstone of TRIPS PLUS ULTRA, is hurting any chance of achieving these goals).

First, it will be convenient for innovators, as explained when addressing TRIPS PLUS ULTRA´s economic efficiency. This will generate revenue for the developed world (discounting for tax havens), since most innovation originates from such countries. Additionally, this agreement could (and should) generate a more effective application of the rule (i.e. compliance with the international standard) by all countries. TRIPS PLUS ULTRA would produce additional revenue for innovators while at the same time alleviating the burden on poorer countries, and avoiding the free rider problem, which in itself would make the international system fairer for those countries that do comply with the regulation. It is also just to recognize that most of the revenue innovative companies generate comes from the United States’ market, because there are no price regulations on drugs by the government in that country. Let the world share the burden, in a coordinated and fair manner!

Everybody looks like a winner. Would anyone be adversely affected by this proposal? See here for an analysis.

Remember, this proposal is also:

• Okay with those academics that believe in IP.
• Okay with those academics that don´t believe in IP
• Going to realign international positions.
• Good for consumers, overall.
• Convenient for producers.
• Convenient for developing countries.
• And remember, all of this would be possible just by changing Article 33 of the TRIPS agreement.