The TRIPS agreement fails to protect traditional knowledge and serves Global North interests over the Global South, continuing to ignore the struggle of indigenous peoples

Despite the fact that the Western creators of the TRIPS believed they were aiding developing countries, the TRIPS agreement comes under the heaviest scrutiny from outsiders as the most concerning patent "reform." The three negotiating forces behind the agreement were Keidanren, the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC), and the Union of Industrial and Employees Confederation (UNICE).1 3 5 Each one of these organizations had strong commercial interests - "IPC is a coalition of 12 major U.S. corporations: Bristol Myers, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Monsanto, Pfizer, Rockwell, and Warner. 136 Keidanren is a federation of economic organizations in Japan, and UNICE is recognized as the official spokesperson for European business and industry."137 Concerns arose that the commercial interests would prioritize the Global North over the Global South, who was absent from much of the TRIPS negotiation process. 138 The TRIPS agreement focused on the privatization of the IP system, affirming WTO member patent systems based on private property rights, which successfully negated communal knowledge. 139 Nor does the agreement take into account the varying definitions of comercialization of traditional knowledge. 140 Before TRIPS was enacted, there were no uniform international IP requirements, and states were free to manage their IP, which meant that traditional knowledge could hypothetically be protected.141 But underdeveloped nations were pressured into signing the agreement to keep pace with developed nation's IP systems at the expense of Indigenous populations and community values. 142 India stated that its adoption of TRIPS in 1994 was due to its need "to utilize demanded-for intellectual property rights as a sword and shield against deculturizing [sic] forces of globalization and foreign investment." 143 Thus, it is no surprise that in many scholars' eyes the TRIPS agreement was a failure and has been likened to modern day imperialism.144 Further, TRIPS has not changed or expanded in any meaningful way since its inception in the mid-nineties, and still stands as a hallmark case of bullying by the West. 145 The agreement preys on the interests of Indigenous populations, but is also in direct conflict with the Convention on Biological Diversity, though they both exist in the same universe as one another and in apparent congruence.