This is a proposal that is: – Ok with those academics who believe in IP

This proposal is at the very least not any worse than the status quo for those academics who believe in intellectual property (i.e. those academics that see social utility in the patent-based system), if they accept that consumers´ rights should be assessed globally and not only taking into account consumers of their own countries; in any event, such a “global perspective” is essentially what underpins the existing TRIPS regulation.

The system would be more efficient and it has the potential to increase its real and effective compliance. An equitable burden sharing system, like the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA, also has the potential to generate more agreements around it, which could actually allow for optimal protection. These are the academic/political goals of those who believe in a patent-based system of innovation (efficiency, effective compliance, harmonization towards the optimal protection); this is where they clash in international politics with those on the other side of the aisle. Here is an analysis of where the two sides of the aisle stand.

Remember, this is a proposal that is also:

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