This is a proposal that is: – going to realign international positions

Regarding intellectual property in general, more than twenty years ago (and even before that) two distinct poles of opinion were formed in the international arena: those who advocated (still do) for the strengthening of patentability and its scope, and those opposed to this approach that sought to limit the rights granted by a patent (still do) with prohibitions and exclusions. Countries have aligned to one pole or the other depending on many factors, but broadly it can be said that on one side we find the developing countries and on the other the developed countries. It is against this background that the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal came about. If the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal were implemented, traditional international positions could flip from one side to the other, because it finds the desired balance. This is the beauty of the proposal. TRIPS PLUS ULTRA could reset the system.

These are examples of issues in relation to which the implementation of this proposal could change the developing world´s view of the system:

On the other hand, if the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal were implemented, some countries of the developed world might no longer find it as convenient to push for the greatest level of protection in the international arena (actually, there are many from developed countries that believe in limitations). All countries in this hypothetical scenario would share the burden of the monopolistic prices set by the owner of the innovation regardless of their wealth (they would carry a burden proportionate to their wealth).

Finding a new balance on many other issues could prove not to be impossible!

TRIPS PLUS ULTRA would reset the system. Before TRIPS PLUS ULTRA, no proposal to fundamentally restructure TRIPS (the agreement which provides the framework for intellectual property protection around the world) has stood a chance in the international arena.

A new agreement could go far beyond:

The TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal could help us (the inhabitants of the world, through the WTO) rethink the whole system. The status quo must be taken just as a reference. For instance, a consensus could be found to give longer periods of exclusivity to patents for new technologies that prove to be good for the environment and, ultimately, for the salvation of our species, if we see that is what we as human beings need to be incentivizing. This is one of many examples. It could also very well be that some areas of knowledge currently covered by patents are dropped because we see them as too burdensome in relation to the benefit of the emergence of such new technology (the question of correlation has been heavily challenged). It could even be that if we found some areas where there is no correlation between protection and innovation, we could get rid of that protection globally. In other areas, if we believe there is a correlation and we wish to have more innovation, we could decide to increase the protection globally. With TRIPS PLUS ULTRA, these or any other such agreements could happen, because the burden is equitably (proportionally) distributed. It is a pragmatic approach.

Remember, this proposal is also: