368. Since we did introduce this item, we would like to thank all delegations that took the floor. This communication is generally worded, and we think that there is definitely some more space to discuss the approach to Article 13 and specifically how it relates to the three-step test. We note the intervention from the honourable delegate from Switzerland, we agree that matters of legal interpretations should be left to the Dispute Settlement Body but nothing in respect of the subject matter of intellectual property excludes us from having an inclusive debate and so we had hoped that the introduction of this paper would firstly stimulate sharing of views in respect of the operation and application of the TRIPS Agreement.
369. I would also like to thank some of the other delegations including India and specifically China who shared to large extent how they have incorporated the limitations and exceptions to Copyright into their laws. Also, we believe that no discussion will be complete if we leave out what Members have done subsequent to the case and interpretation by the DSB. We note that in many instances countries have introduced and incorporated the three-step test into national legislation and we also note that there has been a further evolution of several approaches under free trade agreements and so from this perspective we think it warrants at least a discussion of what we see within the realm of state practice and what this has meant for individual interpretations of the three-step test under national judicial pronouncements.
370. Once again we would like to thank all Members who took the floor and I certainly hope that my delegation would be able to continue this discussion by focusing more specifically on some of the issues that we raised in our paper. As the honourable delegate from the United States clearly points out that when we referred to the context of the TRIPS Agreement Article 13 we need to take note that Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work, and do not unreasonably prejudice legitimate interests of right-holders.
371. As I indicated in the initial intervention there are a whole lot of technical references. Perhaps during the next session of the TRIPS Council we may come back to have a more wholesome discussion on the relevant parts of the three-step test as articulated here, and to further break down the possible implications in respect of some of the meanings and interpretations that have already been given in the context of some of the dispute settlement cases. This would also include what impact this determination would have on a more general flexible interpretation of rights and obligations as they are embedded in the TRIPS Agreement.
