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.  On February 8, 2004, Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced that Australia and the United States had approved the U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) in Australia. (1) The full text was published on 4 March 2004. (2) An important part of the agreement is Chapter 17 on Intellectual Property Rights (Intellectual Property Rights), which includes copyright, trademarks, patents and industrial design.
(3) 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. In December 2003, Trade Minister Mark Vaile cited Article 17.4.4 of the Mickey Mouse clause and objected to its inclusion in the agreement. He has to say that there is an entire constituency with a strong opinion against extending the copyright period, and we are moving this case.
(43) This constituency will be disappointed by the result. Indeed, in September 2000, the former Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committees recommended a revision of intellectual property legislation as part of the Agreement on Principles of Competition against Extending the Term of Copyright, and the Government accepted this recommendation.