The 2002 Doha Declaration confirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary steps to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as mandatory licensing, are almost impossible to obtain. The least developed countries, in particular, have made their young domestic manufacturing and technological industries proof of the infallible policy. Since the TRIPS agreement came into force, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is generally opposed to the WTO, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS policy as a bad policy. The effects of the concentration of WEALTH of TRIPS (money from people in developing countries for copyright and patent holders in industrialized 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 criticisms. Other critics have focused on the inability of trips trips to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, a benefit that WTO members achieved prior to the creation of the agreement. The World Bank`s statements indicate that TRIPS have clearly not accelerated investment in low-income countries, whereas they may have done so for middle-income countries.  As part of TRIPS, long periods of patent validity were examined to determine the excessive slowdown in generic drug entry and competition.
In particular, the illegality of preclinical testing or the presentation of samples to be authorized until a patent expires have been accused of encouraging the growth of certain multinationals and not producers in developing countries. A detailed overview of the ADPIC agreement THE TRIPS agreement … is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property to date… Despite the Doha Declaration, many developing countries have been under pressure in recent years to adopt or implement even stricter or more restrictive conditions in their patent laws than those under the TRIPS agreement – these provisions are called “TRIPS plus.” Countries are not required to do so under international law, but many countries, such as Brazil, China or Central America, have had no choice but to adopt them under trade agreements with the United States or the European Union. These have disastrous effects on access to medicines. Unlike other IP agreements, TRIPS have an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. 59 The ILC found that “the maxim [ut res seism magis valeat pereat] reasonably limited and applied does not require a “broad” or “liberal” interpretation in the sense of an interpretation that goes beyond what must be expressed or necessarily implied in the treaty. ILC (n 35) 219 ; The WTO`s interpretive practice is governed by the DSU, which states that “the recommendations and decisions of the RGB cannot increase or reduce the duties and obligations provided for by the covered agreements.” DSU, art. 3.2 (n 43).