Patents in Developing Countries: Different Standards?

I've noticed several stories in the news lately that deal with patents and how they should be treated in developing countries.

One such article, entitled "Canadian Drugs Patent Law for Poor Countries Released for Comment," discusses proposed legislation in Canada.  This legislation would allow drugs produced in Canada to be exported to developing countries, and sold at a discount.  This article states that "[t]he Canadian regulation is the first attempt internationally to implement a WTO General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 to waive patent rights to permit developing countries to import less expensive versions of high-priority medicines from other countries."  The idea is to allow drugs for HIV/AIDS (among others) to be sold to countries who couldn't afford the full-price.

Two other articles deal with the claim that strong intellectual property rights in developing countries tends to inhibit development.

"Patents Too Long" expresses the viewpoint held by the Honourable Kerrie Symmonds, Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade for Barbados.  He believes that a patent term of 15 years is preferable to a 20 year term.  In his proposal, the 15 year term could be extended by five years.

"Intellectual property rights could harm progress: Developing countries feel brunt of the law" considers the same issue in Lebanon.  The president of the Lebanese Information and Technology Association recently stated "we are afraid the intellectual-property-rights system could negatively affect the developing countries ability to catch up with technological development."

While it's true that developing countries may appear to benefit from weak IP protection, I'm not sure this is the right approach.  This benefit to the developing countries would be at the expense of IP owners.  If IP owners cannot reap the reward of their efforts, the efforts will likely decrease.  We must strike a balance to determine the optimum protection time.  If the protection time is too short, investments cannot be returned and innovation is inhibited.  If it's too long, one innovative step gives long-term profits, creating little incentive to keep looking for another innovation.  The U.S. has found a balance at about 20 years.  Other countries must find this balance as well.  But, they must consider the fact that either extreme will inhibit the innovation necessary for growth.