The Agreement on trade aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) entered into force in 1995 under the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO). TRIPS includes and builds on the latest versions of the primary intellectual property agreements managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which date back to the 1880s. The TRIPS Council will carry out a general review of the Agreement after five years; it is also empowered to review it at any time in the light of relevant new developments which may justify modification and modification (Article 71). The TRIPS Council comprises all WTO members. It shall be responsible for monitoring the functioning of the Agreement and, in particular, the manner in which Members fulfil their obligations under the Agreement. (The full text of the TRIPS Agreement and an explanation of its provisions are available on the WTO website at www.wto.org.) The Agreement on trade aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement between all member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation of different forms of intellectual property (IP) by national governments, as applied to nationals of other WTO member countries. [3] TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990[4] and is managed by the WTO. Since the entry into force of TRIPS, it has been the subject of criticism from developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations.

While some of this criticism is directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also see TRIPS as bad policy. The wealth concentration effects of TRIPS (the movement of money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent holders in developed 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 criticism. . . .