126. The representative of Norway recalled that her country had been the first one to have a fully operational system in place, as the Decision had already been implemented into its domestic legislation on 14 May 2004 and entered into force on 1 June 2004. A detailed description of the system together with a copy of the legislation was set out in document IP/C/W/427. The adopted set of regulations aimed at reflecting as closely as possible the content of the Decision. It followed a tradition in the domestic legal system, where national provisions relating to the implementation of international public law had to be interpreted in light of the international public law provisions.
127. She believed that it was more important to get the amendment right than rushing into changes to the TRIPS Agreement. She reiterated her delegation's view that the transposition of the Decision into treaty language should be considered primarily as a technical exercise, that would not change the substance of the Decision itself. Her delegation was not committed to any particular form that such an amendment should have. She said that incorporation of the Decision into the Agreement by reference in a footnote would not prevent it from acquiring treaty status. Alternatively, the 30 August 2003 text could be annexed to the Agreement, or changes could be made to Article 31 of the Agreement. Any combination of these two forms would also be acceptable to her delegation.
128. In her delegation's view, the Chairman's Statement should primarily be seen as an interpretative instrument. Its inclusion in the Agreement would change and upgrade its legal status, in a way that had not been foreseen in August 2003. It followed, therefore, that her delegation could only agree to the re-reading of the Statement at the time of the adoption of the amendment of the Agreement.
129. She said that the examples of Norway, Canada, and others showed that nothing barred Members from already implementing the Decision into national legislation at the present stage. Due to different legal systems, there were differences in the domestic implementation. She referred to the example of Canada which had chosen to also include the Chairman's statement in its legislation, whereas her country had chosen not to do so. While her delegation supported the necessary time being taken to get the amendment right, it was equally important to underline that the Decision was fully operational and that nothing in the present process should prevent Members from taking the necessary measures to implement it. Against this background, she expressed concern about the lack of results in the ongoing process which seemed to create uncertainty around the arrangements agreed upon in August 2003 after some very difficult negotiations. Few Members had so far implemented the Decision. Her delegation had the impression that many Members would await an agreement on the amendment to the TRIPS Agreement before making the necessary amendments to their national patent laws. She, therefore, urged Members to agree on a solution. Her delegation stood ready to support work towards a compromise solution. She also indicated that, although her delegation had already put in place national implementing legislation, it would be ready to adapt that legislation if Members were to agree on another solution in the forthcoming discussion.
