譯文（字數 3179）：

隨著世界貿易組織（WTO）的建立，使得在降低關稅和限制貿易保護的規定出臺，專利平行進口的合法性和品牌藥物已成為WTO成員國之間越來越有爭議的問題。減少和取消關稅和貿易壁壘產生的條件，鼓勵這些藥品的平行進口。此外，與貿易有關的知識產權協定（TRIPS協議）允許成員國建立和權利用盡的相關的法律和規則，在不能質疑WTO爭端解決制度下，成員國之間需要協調和政策辯論。

因為他們的專利和品牌的藥物是有爭議的平行進口問題。第一，有兩個主要的公共政策目標之間的內在沖突：（1）成員國的新藥物的創新和發展，（2）成員國的衛生保健系統和寬帶接入現有藥品的短期成本控制策略。因此，對于雙方的經濟和法律學者，專利和品牌藥品平行進口應是專利法規定的問題已成為一個充滿激情的政策辯論。這個問題可能在世界規范和國際貿易的結果中，可能對未來仍較突出的學術發展和消費者福利的討論過程中有顯著的影響。今天，大部分的辯論有關的協調的權利用盡原則和平行進口法律圍繞的意愿和偏好的成員國改變各自的平行進口的法律規范體系以促進共同利益。

外文原文（字符數 11712）：

Parallel imports of patented and branded drugs are controversial because their

consumer welfare effects are generally ambiguous. First, there is an inherent

conflict between two major public-policy objectives: (i) innovation and development

of new drugs and (ii) short-run cost-containment strategies for the health care system

and broad access to existing medicines. Therefore, the question whether parallel

imports of patented and branded drugs should be regulated under the patent laws

has become a matter of passionate policy debate among both economic and legal

scholars. This question is likely to remain prominent in future discussions of IP

norms and international trade and the outcome may have significant consequences

for the process of academic development and consumer welfare. Today, much of the

debate regarding the harmonisation of ‘principle of exhaustion’ and parallel import

laws revolves around the willingness and preferences of Member States to change

their respective parallel import laws to conform to a uniform system in attempt to

advance the common good.