Global system harms small countries econ – they say no or the CP is the squo

On the other hand, a proliferation of fora will benefit more powerful countries by raising the transaction costs for policy negotiation and co-ordination, thereby helping these countries to retain the status quo.18 The higher costs, along with the increased incoherence and complexities of the international intellectual property regime complex, are particularly damaging to less-developed countries, which often lack resources, expertise, leadership, negotiation sophistication and bargaining power. There are also justified fears that developed countries and their powerful supporting industries would launch what one commentator has described as a ‘‘multiple forum capture’’19—a multi-forum strategy that seeks to shape the agenda, discussions, and norm development in areas that are implicated by intellectual property protection.20 Secondly, with the arrival of the TRIPS Agreement and the growing use of TRIPSplus bilateral, plurilateral, and regional trade agreements, the international intellectual property system is no longer as international as it was originally designed. Rather, the system has now become global and somewhat supranational.21 While Paul Geller alluded to the new ‘‘network model’’ of intellectual property lawmaking,22 Jane Ginsburg observed the emergent development of a ‘‘supranational code’’.23 In the provocative words of noted English jurist Robin Jacob L.J., ‘‘as time goes on . . . the world will realize that at least for intellectual property the days of the nation-state are over’’.2