Bill Overview
Title: No Free TRIPS Act
Description: This bill prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating or concluding any withdrawal from or modification to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) without explicit authorization from Congress. The TRIPS Agreement is one of several international agreements that led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In October 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several WTO members proposed a waiver of some TRIPS obligations, including obligations related to national patent laws.
Sponsors: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-50]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by changes or restrictions to intellectual property negotiations under TRIPS Agreement
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The TRIPS Agreement involves members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which includes 164 member countries as of now.
- Intellectual property laws, especially patents, can impact a wide range of industries such as pharmaceuticals, technology, agriculture, and more.
- The proposed waiver during COVID-19 was intended to facilitate access to medical products like vaccines, which are especially relevant to low-income and developing nations.
- Any alterations to TRIPS without U.S. participation could affect global supply chains and international trade relations.
Reasoning
- The policy affects the ability of the U.S. to modify intellectual property laws in response to global crises, which can impact industries like pharmaceuticals and technology.
- People working in these industries or relying on affordable access to technologies may be affected to varying degrees.
- Those in sectors not directly related to intellectual property, or who do not engage in international trade, may not feel any immediate effects.
- The TRIPS policies, and changes to them, have in the past directly affected big pharmaceutical companies, tech companies, and even universities.
- Given the budget limitation, we assume targeted efforts to gauge and manage policy impacts, focusing mainly on industries heavily reliant on intellectual property rules.
- Consideration should be given to both positive and negative impacts as different sectors may benefit from stronger intellectual protections while others from more flexibility.
Simulated Interviews
Pharmaceutical Executive (New Jersey)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am relieved by this policy. It ensures we won't have unexpected changes in IP laws, which can destabilize our long-term research plans.
- Our company values the certainty in IP laws, ensuring our investments are protected globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned the policy might limit innovation as it could restrict access to international patents that we might want to use.
- We rely on some flexibility in IP regulations to innovate rapidly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
University Professor (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might limit our ability to collaborate internationally, particularly with developing nations.
- I'm worried about the long-term global health implications if innovation slows in the public health sphere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Journalist (Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an economic perspective, I see the sense in this policy for maintaining stability.
- However, I recognize how it may not align with efforts for more equitable global health solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retiree (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much impact on me personally.
- Intellectual property agreements seem more relevant to industries that I'm not familiar with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Massachusetts)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy highlights how politically intricate IP laws are.
- As a student, I'm interested in the legal ramifications, but I won't feel any direct impact just yet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Advisor (Washington)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical to uphold IP rights; however, VIP negotiations where we have input are essential.
- I think it keeps the door open for controlled discussions with Congress involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m not sure how this policy will affect me personally.
- It seems more relevant to big industries and international business deals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Healthcare Advocate (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this could maintain the high cost of essential medicines during a pandemic or crisis.
- Access and affordability may be compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Automotive Industry Manager (Michigan)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For our industry, consistency in trade agreements is crucial.
- Uncertain IP laws may affect our technology partnerships. We prefer predictability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill aims to enhance congressional oversight on international intellectual property agreements, potentially impacting U.S. negotiating power.
- It might slow down or complicate rapid response in future global health emergencies where IP waivers might be necessary.
- The impacts could vary significantly across different sectors, particularly those heavily reliant on IP protections.