The search for consensus led to the compilation of a draft agreement by the Director General of the GATT. This draft was eventually successful, which is still debatable, because it went largely in the direction sought by the US, provided sufficient protection for European geographical indications on wines and spirits and allowed Japan to retain the right of authors to allow the rental of copyright works⁵ . Developing countries largely gave up their main demands but got some relatively minor concessions such as the possibility to exclude plant and animals from patentability. The final outcome was, on the one hand, a real success for global business, which obtained most of the concessions it sought. On the other hand, developing countries – apart from the most industrialised among them which did not stand to lose much from the TRIPS Agreement – gave up most of their demands. The reasons for eventually signing up to the TRIPS Agreement were mostly that it was made part of the broader package deal of the Uruguay Round, which included other agreements that were perceived as beneficial to developing countries. In other words, while it may be that some countries did not fully understand the consequences of signing up to the TRIPS Agreement, it was generally understood that it was not a positive outcome for developing countries. Nevertheless, it had to be seen in the broader context of the Uruguay Round, which countries perceived at least at that time, as partly giving in to some of the concerns of developing countries, for instance, concerning the Multifibre Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture ⁶.

Notes and References

⁵ Duncan Matthews 2002.

⁶ See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations, Marrakech, 15 April 1994.