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. The 2002 Doha Declaration confirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary steps to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as mandatory licensing, are almost impossible to obtain. The least developed countries, in particular, have made their young domestic manufacturing and technological industries proof of the infallible policy. Although Chart 2 does not distinguish between domestic and foreign operations, we can speculate that THE strategic decisions of SMEs have also influenced the impact and trajectories of IP policy in different countries (Bessen-Meurer, 2008). Global fragmentation of value chains is linked to multi-directional information and knowledge flows of companies participating in the international network of multinational companies (Markus, Sia, Soh-Soh, 2012) and weak protection in the fight against intellectual property increases the risk of information leaks and misappropriation (p. B.
Martinez-Noya – Garcia-Canal, 2011). Successful integration of GVC requires a dense flow of information to communicate, in addition to costs and other products, specifications, standards and technical know-how (Gereffi, Humphrey, Sturgeon, 2005). In this context, leading companies must be able to balance the benefits of aggregating the production process and resulting in cost reductions against the risk of losing control of some of their own intangible assets.