Other international instruments. As discussed throughout in the text, TRIPS draws substantially on the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits of 1989, the Washington Treaty. 1007 In practice, ten years was the standard term set out by the SCPA and adopted by the regulations enacted in other developed countries at the time of the negotiation of the Washington Treaty. 518 Integrated circuits
Other international instruments. Other multilateral instruments contain provisions offering an opportunity to negotiate commitments for home country measures beneficial to developing countries.70
Other international instruments. In the field of competition rules relating to restrictive business practices, the de- velopment of international instruments is marked by hesitancy.78 There seem to be no other binding international79 instruments directly dealing with competi- tion rules that specifically apply to IPR-related restrictive practices. The Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restric- tive Business Practices, which concerns anticompetitive conduct in general, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1980 as a non-binding reso- lution only.80 It has the character of a recommendation addressed to Members, and, as such, may have guided the design of competition rules, which so many countries have adopted in recent years.81 Some instruments, such as the Paris Convention for the International Protec- tion of Industrial Property,82 refer indirectly to the existence of abusive practices by dealing with the grant of compulsory licences. The most ambitious effort to establish international rules of competition on IPR-related business practices was 77 See Section 1 of the “Reference Paper” accepted by Members as “additional commitments” when signing the “Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Services” of February 15, 1997 (reprinted from 36 Int’l Leg. Mat. 354, 367 (1997):
Other international instruments. 5.2.1 The WIPO-administered conventions The state – state dispute settlement system provided by the WIPO-administered intellectual property protection treaties has in the past proved less efficient than the DSU.141 There is a WIPO Draft Treaty on the Settlement of Disputes between States in the Field of Intellectual Property.142 The utility of such treaty is rather controversial. Some states have insisted that, after the entry into force of TRIPS, there would be no further need to pursue the creation of a WIPO dispute settlement system.143 On the other hand, it may be argued that the establishment of such system in parallel to the WTO DSU would bring certain, particularly political, advantages.144
Other international instruments. This Agreement shall not prejudice the rights and obligations stemming from other international instruments to which either country is a Party.
Other international instruments. As indicated above (Section 2.1), provisions on review and amendment are not particular to TRIPS, but also exist, inter alia, under the Paris and Berne Conven- tions. Since these Conventions have to be respected by all WTO Members (see Articles 2.1 and 9.1), any amendments to their texts are automatically binding, even for those Members not parties to the respective Convention. This does not apply vice versa, in that TRIPS amendments will not be binding on countries that are Paris/Berne Convention parties, but not WTO Members.
Other international instruments. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prescribes rules regarding reserva- tions at Articles 19–23.
Other international instruments. While TRIPS incorporates and cross-references WIPO conventions, the WIPO con- ventions do not in their text incorporate or cross-reference the TRIPS Agreement. However, the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty123 includes a number of “Agreed State- ments”, and among these are three that refer to TRIPS.124 In each case, the pre- sumed objective of the agreed statement is to clarify that the rules adopted at WIPO are consistent with the rules of TRIPS. However, the language used to express this consistency does little to resolve ambiguity. As example, Article 4, WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 10.1, TRIPS Agree- ment, each provide that computer software is protected by copyright, but the agreements describe the subject matter of “computer programs” differently. The WIPO definition is framed more broadly (“whatever may be the mode or form 123 Adopted in Geneva on 20 December 1996. The treaty is available at <xxxx://xxx.xxxx. int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo033en.htm>. 124 These agreed statements are as follows: “Agreed statements concerning Article 4: The scope of protection for computer programs under Article 4 of this Treaty, read with Article 2, is consistent with Article 2 of the Berne Convention and on a par with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.” “Agreed statements concerning Article 5: The scope of protection for compilations of data (databases) under Article 5 of this Treaty, read with Article 2, is consistent with Article 2 of the Berne Convention and on a par with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.” “Agreed statements concerning Article 7: It is understood that the obligation under Article 7(1) does not require a Contracting Party to provide an exclusive right of commercial rental to authors who, under that Contracting Party’s law, are not granted rights in respect of phonograms. It is understood that this obligation is consistent with Article 14(4) of the TRIPS Agreement.”
Other international instruments. WIPO conventions that contain provisions relevant to geographical indications are discussed in Section 2.1, above, including the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agree- ment for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods and the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their In- ternational Registration. Each of these agreements remains in force. Provisions of the Paris Convention relevant to geographical indications are incorporated by reference in TRIPS (see Chapter 3).
Other international instruments. There is no particular relationship between Article 73 and the provisions on secu- rity exceptions under other international instruments.
