What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

The monsanto of pot? Wtf?

MJPassion

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Junk said:
I thought you could only patent something if you modified it genetically? That's how Monsanto does it. You can't patent a "natural" plant.

And as a schedule 1 I thought you couldn't research it? So how could you patent it?
Click to expand...

You cannot patent a seed variety BUT...

Plants & seed varieties CAN be protected via PVPA for a period of 20 years. After those 20 years are up, I think anybody can do pretty much whatever they want with that particular protected variety.

Speculation of this point is pretty much useless since all the needed info is readily available by looking around a little.

Pretty sure this link to Cornell U. will answer any questions one might have concerning PVPA (Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/chapter-57

As to your last comment quoted...
The powers that be can & do exactly as they please.
They believe the saying "Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Lol
 
Brother Nature

Brother Nature

Well-known member
These types of threads are great, but I think also miss some major points. When the plant we all know and love was illegal, it wasn't you're connoisseur quality breeders or growers making the money, it was the very large, very powerful, criminal organizations raking in the big bucks,and it was a lot more unregulated. I'm not saying that was good, but I am saying it hasn't actually changed all that much, aside from transparency, I mean we've got threads on here talking openly about how much growers are able to sell pounds for. Would that have happened before? I for one welcome (hesitantly) a little more transparency in our community. MJPassion also brings up an excellent point about PVPA. The second major point I think people ignore is we've been growing and breeding this plant illegally for a long fucking time, who really gives a shit about following the rules some government lays out for use, just cause they say "oh we'll allow this now". I probably had a point to end this on too, but have been smoking while writing so all that's gone up in a cloud of smoke.
 
herbgreen

herbgreen

Active member
Veteran
This is a really good video called Evolution of Cannabis

If you want to hear only about patents its at the end of part 2 where kyle kushman asks about it from the audience

There may be other good stuff I cant remember... so just watch the whole thing!:)

Panelists:

Jeffrey Raber - CEO & CVO | The Werc Shop
Josh Wurzer - President | SC Laboratories
Swami Chaitanya - Co-Founder | Swami Select
Michael Backes - Communications | NaPro Research/Phytecs
Mel Frank - Consultant, Publisher, Author, Photographer

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdwW3bF2m4

Part2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myd5S1zMseQ
 
Weird

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
herbgreen

herbgreen

Active member
Veteran
If folks watch that video Mel Frank and a dude who says he has a utility patent talk all about how it really is working so far

The utility patent his group got was for a high CBD strain that lacks myrcene This is a variety they breed for 3 years to get and appealed to the patent office a bunch of times

Anyhow, I guess its not seeds that are really the patent... Its the plant. and clones grafting ect Like apple trees apparently

And he says its more likely to see patents for resistant plants to powdered mildew or spidermites Like monsantos relationship with round-up and sow beans and crabgrass

Stuff like that....

Phylos science is being fueled with donations by people like charlie garcia and other fine folks

I highly doubt people like that would contribute if there was some nefarious undercurrent to F-up cannabis....

+ all these guys are moving regular seeds at low prices and sharing all the goodvibes

We all love a good conspirisy theory...I dont blame anyone

And of course anything is possible....i have been wrong before but just look whos contributing landrace genetics... Does it even come close to making sense in that context??

No, it doesnt...and yes Ive read all the articles

But yeah, the shadow of something weird certainly seems to be approaching on the eve of full legalization....We should all be aware!

However, its not flippin'... MelFrank and company....lol... I dont think so!
 
dank.frank

dank.frank

ef.yu.se.ka.e.em
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Look. When talking about patents, you can not put a patent on something you can prove has been in the public domain.

Phylos, by giving a genetic footprint, is giving you the tools you need to prove what you have grown, what others have grown is not special, unique or in the possession of a single entity. By having a strain entered in the database multiple times, if shows it is as a public domain, and something that can not be patented.

They are actually the good guys in this fight, so it would seem.

From reading the article and thinking hard about things, it seems these large players are after the core / original / base strains that have been used as building blocks. Things that people don't actually have anymore. That aren't common. Then they can say, we've always had, we've always owned, it was always ours - and everything that ever came from it and holds it's genetics, is also ours. Don't go after the mass strains, go after the origin points, and then by default they own everything with much less work that chasing thousands of individual lines.

I honestly think, if you are going to enter the legal market and attempt to offer anything unique and you are concerned it might be at risk, the only way to protect it from such is to make it property of the public domain. If you can't afford the genetic assay, Phylos is offering to do it for you, if you are willing to let them publish that data and make it open source. Not your genes. Just the data. They can pull that information with a tissue sample from a leaf or a portion of a stem. You don't have to surrender your unique foothold in an emerging legal market for them to garner the data.



dank.Frank
 
Last edited:
O

oldchuck

Active member
Veteran
I don't believe "Cannabis" can be patented. It already exists. A patent requires "new art." New art may involve some special, exclusive genetic combination. An actual GMO organism might qualify but not generic Cannabis. One of the remarkable features of Cannabis is genetic diversity. A name could get trademark protection but that would have nothing to do with genetics. All Cannabis seeds are now "in the wild" due to illegality and genetic diversity. The exception that I know of right now are some legal European hemp varieties which can demonstrate some genetic consistency. They are legal, when tested, and consistently reproducible. Weed greed will not affect any currently produced Cannabis anywhere it is now illegal nationally, like the US. I'm no lawyer but that is my understanding of the law. I think our seeds, in all their diversity, are safe.
 
S

Satyros

Member
Nothing much compares to Monsanto (now part of Bayer).

The equivalent would be them forcing you to buy their non-breedable plant, while hosing the whole atmosphere with pollen to corrupt all other plants. Most agriculture is done from hybrids that don't breed true, forcing you to purchase more seed next season. Unless you eat an heirloom vegetable, most likely it was such a hybrid.

Note the "Ecuadorian Sativa" patent refers to a cultivar; clone only.

I have a different type of plant grown from seed from the Sultanate of Brunei, because domestically, you can only get it by purchasing a license, which would confine it to the hands of a big business. I suppose a patent is lurking somewhere behind that licensing scheme. I don't relish the prospect of cannabis following the same trends as mankind messing up everything else in the world--all support to traditional growers.
 
bodhiseeds

bodhiseeds

Member
Veteran
chimera would be a good person to ask to shed some light on the subject...

i believe he was the lead breeder behind the first USPTO cannabis cultivar patent...
 
MJPassion

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
bodhiseeds said:
"Ecuadorian Sativa"
=
federations celestial temple sativa
Click to expand...
Good to know...
Now all the NLD heads are gonna come a running for this legend.

bodhiseeds said:
chimera would be a good person to ask to shed some light on the subject...

i believe he was the lead breeder behind the first USPTO cannabis cultivar patent...
Click to expand...
It would be very interesting to see what Chimera has to say about this subject.
Not just plant patents but also those utility patents that some are claiming would render personal growing, for their own meds, obsolete (so to speak).
 
herbgreen

herbgreen

Active member
Veteran
'Ecuadorian sativa' is Celestial Temple Sativa X island sweet skunk as far as i can gather

Cannabis plant named ‘Ecuadorian Sativa’
https://www.google.com/patents/USPP27475

"The inventor cultivated various strains of ‘Cannabis sativa’ in an effort to create a strain best suited to control his own disorder. This plant was derived from a female said to be of a strain called colloquially, ‘Celestial Temple Sativa’ an individual grown in Ecuador that reached a height of 23 ft (7 m), and was of the typical subspecies, ‘Cannabis sativa ssp. sativa’. The male parent is said to have been of a strain known colloquially as ‘island sweet skunk’ and reportedly to belonged to the subspecies ‘Cannabis sativa ssp. indica (Lam.)’. Small and Cronquist 1976 Supra. Neither ‘Celestial Temple Sativa’ nor ‘island sweet skunk’ has been patented in the United States or elsewhere, nor are they the subject of any pending patent applications of which the inventor is aware."

Does this mean no one can use Celestial Temple Sativa or sweet skunk in a cross? I doubt it

I think it means the resulting clone derived from this cross has a patent number...whatever that means for that clone only

My best guess:tiphat:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding, production, processing and use of specialty cannabis
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9095554B2/en

That's one they talk about in the GQ article...BioTech
https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-pot-monopoly-mystery

We have no idea what this all means....I think breeders want to be independant Not controlled by big companies....which would be a guess where this is going for them eventually... a good thing

In the mean time its good having breeders we know inside the patent and govt research projects

You know they will have their own facilities and companies and creativity....They will most likely get own their own gigs and run their own show as it should be...just a prediction

good to see them infuse their influence and energy!

Amazing indeed
 
herbgreen

herbgreen

Active member
Veteran
Yeah, bodhi thats the one... I couldnt get your link to go....

Breeding, production, processing and use of specialty cannabis
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9095554B2/en

It is Fuckin crazy....

Its alot of serious info or ....what is it anyway????

Im doin my best to be extremely positive its hard to know what it even means

This is alot of homework....but we all need to be aware

cottage industry cannabis production and independent breeders!

i know some folks are fearing the worst...as in the incarceration of cannabis molecules once free in the pubic domain....

From the article:
“Utility patents are big. Scary,” Holmes said. “All of cannabis could be locked up. They could sue people for growing in their own backyards.”

Thats wicked crazy sounding and forget it...This is some sensational writing GQ!

And that patent...

That is quite a read.
 
Last edited:
Sam_Skunkman

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
Cannabis bred for a Cannabinoid or Terpene profile that did not exist in the past can be patented. When we bred varieties that had only one Cannabinoid they did not exist before we bred them and we could of patented them but I did not want to. Our breeding was classical breeding not GMO, we never worked with GMO ever.
-SamS

oldchuck said:
I don't believe "Cannabis" can be patented. It already exists. A patent requires "new art." New art may involve some special, exclusive genetic combination. An actual GMO organism might qualify but not generic Cannabis. One of the remarkable features of Cannabis is genetic diversity. A name could get trademark protection but that would have nothing to do with genetics. All Cannabis seeds are now "in the wild" due to illegality and genetic diversity. The exception that I know of right now are some legal European hemp varieties which can demonstrate some genetic consistency. They are legal, when tested, and consistently reproducible. Weed greed will not affect any currently produced Cannabis anywhere it is now illegal nationally, like the US. I'm no lawyer but that is my understanding of the law. I think our seeds, in all their diversity, are safe.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top