The statement also states that members recognize that the system „should be used in good faith to protect public health and should not be an instrument for pursuing industrial or commercial objectives, without prejudice to paragraph 6 of the decision.“ The only reasonable reading of this statement is that the importing country should use the system for public health reasons, but it certainly does not exclude the supply of necessary medicines that have a commercial profit motive. Without the ability to make a profit, potential suppliers will not be encouraged to make the investments (including legal cost coverage) necessary to meet the requirements of countries that do not have production capacity. The least developed countries were granted until 1 January 2006. Article 66.1. On 30 November 2005, members agreed to extend the deadline until 1 July 2013 or until a country is no longer the least developed if previously the case. With regard to pharmaceutical patents, this will be extended until 2016 as part of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The TRIPS agreement has made significant changes to international intellectual property rights standards. Because of its considerable impact, it is one of the most controversial elements of the WTO system. At the initiative of developing countries, concerns about the impact of the TRIPS agreement on public health were reflected in the adoption in 2001 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS and Public Health Agreement. The declaration was followed in 2003 by a Council decision on the implementation of paragraph 6 on TRIPS.
In this article, the author notes that the implementation of paragraph 6 is unlikely to put, as expected, significant pressure on patent holders to reduce their prices or negotiate voluntary licences. The author points out that controversies are likely to continue, especially as developed countries seek TRIPS protection more through the interpretation or negotiation of bilateral and regional agreements, and patents are issued on tribal developments and used to block or delay competition for generic drugs. Similarly, changes to national legislation will be required in potential exporting countries. Compulsory licences are granted for reasons provided by national legislation. The supply of export markets is not a recognized reason in most national legislation.16 In addition, in the implementation of Article 31.f of the TRIPS agreement, WTO members granted 17 compulsory licences for the „predominant“ supply of the internal market.