Trips-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified.  These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products.  The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The terms of trips plus in the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of mandatory licences to emergencies, remedies for cartels and abuse of dominance, and cases of non-commercial public use.  The obligations under Articles 3 and 4 do not apply to procedures under WIPO`s multilateral agreements for the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights. Article 7 (Principles) and Article 8 (Goals) are at the forefront of the text of the WTO`s ON-TRIPS agreement, but have been sparsely illustrated in the statement of the dispute resolution body`s (DSB) reasons. This disparity is further accentuated by taking into account three key factors. First, the pioneering step of trips negotiators, which involves including comprehensive statements of intent in the operational text.
Second, the strengthening of these provisions in the Doha DECLARATION on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001. Finally, the literal transposition of these provisions into other international ip instruments, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and WIPO`s development agenda. Taken together, these factors require a more in-depth analysis of the importance and application of Sections 7 and 8. This article is intended to contribute to this study by making available the different elements of each provision of a detailed text analysis. It will appear that necessity, adequacy, coherence and good faith are legal principles contained in Articles 7 and 8. In addition, these provisions recognize a principle of central interpretation – that of national regulatory autonomy. This means, but also, taking into account national political choices, recognizing a state-centered calibration method that must guide the application of TRIPS and any other agreement in which they are integrated. Article 40 of the TRIPS ON Agreement recognizes that certain practices or licensing conditions related to intellectual property rights that limit competition can have negative effects on trade and impede the transfer and dissemination of technology (paragraph 1).
Member States may adopt appropriate measures under the other provisions of the agreement to prevent or control abusive and anti-competitive intellectual property licensing practices (paragraph 2). The agreement provides a mechanism by which a country intending to take action against such practices involving companies from another Member State will consult with that other Member State and exchange non-confidential information relevant to the public for the issue in question and other information available to that member, subject to domestic law and the conclusion of satisfactory agreements for both parties regarding compliance with its confidentiality by the member. applicant member (paragraph 3). Similarly, a country whose companies in another Member State are subject to such measures may engage in consultations with that member (point 4). The ON TRIPS agreement is a minimum model agreement that allows members to more broadly protect intellectual property protection on demand. Members are free to determine the appropriate method of transposing the provisions of the agreement into their own legal and practical order.