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. 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.  A 2003 agreement relaxed domestic market requirements and allowed developing countries to export to other countries with national health problems until drug exports are part of a trade or industrial policy.  Drugs exported under such regulations may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting the markets of industrialized countries. Article 40 of the TRIPS ON Agreement recognizes that certain practices or licensing conditions related to intellectual property rights that limit competition can have negative effects on trade and impede the transfer and dissemination of technology (paragraph 1). Member States may adopt appropriate measures under the other provisions of the agreement to prevent or control abusive and anti-competitive intellectual property licensing practices (paragraph 2). The agreement provides a mechanism by which a country intending to take action against such practices involving companies from another Member State will consult with that other Member State and exchange non-confidential information relevant to the public for the issue in question and other information available to that member, subject to domestic law and the conclusion of satisfactory agreements for both parties regarding compliance with its confidentiality by the member. applicant member (paragraph 3).