The monsanto of pot? Wtf?

Sam_Skunkman said:

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

Click to expand...

Thanks for coming in and posting facts. I was curious as to what people were saying about you and possibly breeding gmo varieties it's definitely nice to know you're a good guy

Blessed Be and One Love

-Hemperorsknight/Emperortaima

Hard to believe you could get a valid patent for something illegal.

Cannabis is legal for Medicine in several countries and has been for quite a while, anyway I assure you I could of patented the new novel varieties with unique Cannabinoid profiles, we created that just did not exist before we made them, but I decided against it. Remember that I could grow, breed, import and export clones legally here in the EU for the last 25 years and patenting was no problem, if I had wanted to. Cannabis could legally be used as medicine even under the UN Drug Single Conventions worst times. Just no one made or sold it until recently.
All that is or will change and allow not only patents but UPOV breeders rights based on Cannabinoid and terpene profiles, which is not allowed yet.
-SamS

oldchuck said:

Hard to believe you could get a valid patent for something illegal.

Click to expand...

Sam_Skunkman said:

Cannabis is legal for Medicine in several countries and has been for quite a while, anyway I assure you I could of patented the new novel varieties with unique Cannabinoid profiles, we created that just did not exist before we made them, but I decided against it. Remember that I could grow, breed, import and export clones legally here in the EU for the last 25 years and patenting was no problem, if I had wanted to. Cannabis could legally be used as medicine even under the UN Drug Single Conventions worst times. Just no one made or sold it until recently.
All that is or will change and allow not only patents but UPOV breeders rights based on Cannabinoid and terpene profiles, which is not allowed yet.
-SamS

Click to expand...

Thats good it's not allowed cannabis imo should NOT be patented as we humans SHOULD have the right to access and do as we please with the plant. Thanks for not turning ya back on the community kinda like how ms greedy stony girl gardens did with that pit bull

Sam_Skunkman said:

Cannabis is legal for Medicine in several countries and has been for quite a while, anyway I assure you I could of patented the new novel varieties with unique Cannabinoid profiles, we created that just did not exist before we made them, but I decided against it. Remember that I could grow, breed, import and export clones legally here in the EU for the last 25 years and patenting was no problem, if I had wanted to. Cannabis could legally be used as medicine even under the UN Drug Single Conventions worst times. Just no one made or sold it until recently.
All that is or will change and allow not only patents but UPOV breeders rights based on Cannabinoid and terpene profiles, which is not allowed yet.
-SamS

Click to expand...

Hey Mr Skunkman, don't feed us that BS. If you could of patented cannabis you definitely would of buddy.

The patenting process is time-consuming and pricey. Even after that, the legal costs and constant searching for so-called interlopers is complicated and expensive. As with anything in the USA, the real profits are in the scams.

trichrider said:

whoa that set me back on my heels.
wasn't SkunkmanSam soliciting genetic samples from anyone and anywhere?
phylo or some related name.
is this what they were/are up to?

not accusing you Sam, but the optics are bad. can you blame me?

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25...annabis-genome-changing-weed-game-436526.html

https://www.phylosbioscience.com/cannabis-genotyping/

Click to expand...

Did you even read the Newsweek article?

Here's a quote from that article..
..and this is what Sam has said about the Phylos-project all along.

"Once complete, Phylos will hand over its data set to the Open Cannabis Project, a nonprofit effort to build an archival record of all cannabis strains, to ensure they stay in the public domain."

-
-

Weird said:

not everyone was naive enough to submit samples

Click to expand...

I sent some samples to Sam. Can you explain me how that makes me a naive person.

Maybe you would of, but I did not and I could of.
-SamS

zoo said:

Hey Mr Skunkman, don't feed us that BS. If you could of patented cannabis you definitely would of buddy.

Click to expand...

I intend no disrespect but why do many folks write "would of" instead of "would've"?

zoo said:

Hey Mr Skunkman, don't feed us that BS. If you could of patented cannabis you definitely would of buddy.

Click to expand...

Why pick on someone? He is not doing squat to you.... smh.. don't ruin this thread dude we would appreciate you taking your negativity else where, thank you... bye

I know what the Phylos project said and I almost sent Sam some samples but hesitated. Not that I don't trust Sam's sincerity, but these days there is too much duplicity in the industry. Too many people out to make millions. I would rather keep my seeds "in the wild"

dank.frank said:

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

Click to expand...

G `day DF

Well expressed .


What a bunch of chicken Littles .Running about telling stories about big corp .
Laws re public domain and uniqueness , trash all of this patent Kush / skunk / NL talk .

Go read patent laws and then come back to the forums and comment .

Thanks for sharin

EB .

Patents are like badges to me and in case you don't know......

https://youtu.be/XT8hE7_8BCY

Edit: of coarse I'm just trying to be funny! I actually tried reading up on utility patents, it wasn't very long before I threw in the book(I would have added the word "literally" but I'm not sure if the internet counts!lol).

Anyway....I'm gonna have to fkn trust somebody at some point.....or not, either way, the world won't ever know the fkn difference!haha

Super edit: I think it's actually towel! I threw in the towel? But I wasn't reading anything off a fkn towel? Wtf! Hahaha

Anybody comes to my house talking about patents imma look them right in their fkn eye and hit'em with one of these

https://youtu.be/w9QAxL2pKq8

Might be funny through the peephole too!haha

Let’s begin by saying that it wasn’t John Lee Hooker himself that sued Z.Z. Top, but rather Hooker’s songwriting partner and copyright holder, Bernard Besman. The classic boogie-style blues riff that was first recorded by John Lee Hooker in the form of “Boogie Chillun”, in 1948, became the basis for the court case La Cienega Music Co v. Z.Z. Top in 1992. Hooker had long acknowledged that his sound was far from original. He has often attributed his musical style of “boogie” as his version of the boogie-woogie style he heard growing up in Mississippi. Hooker also made public statements that he, personally, was not involved in the lawsuit against Z.Z. Top and that he would not gain financially in anyway. Additionally, he said he respected Z.Z. Top and that they were mutual fans of each other’s work.

So, how did this copyright infringement case over the classic riff of “Boogie Chillun”, “La Grange” and countless other blues and rock tunes come to be?

In 1992, Besman (and his company La Cienega Music Co.) brought a claim against Z.Z. Top and their publishing company, Hamstein Music Company, over the 1973, Z.Z. Top hit “La Grange”, which he alleged was infringing the copyright of the Besman-owned song “Boogie Chillun”, published in 1948, a re-written and published version in 1950, as well as another re-written version in 1970. (An important fact is that John Lee Hooker had assigned all his rights to this song to Besman, who later registered the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1967.)

Z.Z. Top argued that though “La Grange” was based on the “Boogie Chillun” and John Lee Hooker’s style of boogie, that the elements taken and the song itself were considered public domain. This argument, which ultimately was convincing to the court, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, was that under the Copyright Act of 1909, “Boogie Chillun” was no longer protected by copyright.

The court rule that under the 1909 Copyright Act, an “unpublished” song was entitled to protection under what is known as State “Common-law Copyright protection”, until either it is published or it is registered with the U.S Copyright Office. Although the Copyright Act is unclear as to what constitutes “publishing”, other than publication of sheet music, the majority of courts have agreed the sale of recordings to the general public rises to “publishing” for purposes of common-law copyright. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, an author of a creative work, is entitled to 28 years of copyright protection, with the option to re-register for an additional 28 years. The court also found, under the 1909 Copyright Act, that once a song is published and the author has failed to register the work with the U.S Copyright Office, the song immediately, and irrevocably falls into the public domain. In this case, the Courts found that Besman had failed to properly copyright the song in a timely manner, so the early versions of the song were considered part of the public domain, which meant Z.Z. Top was not liable to Besman or La Cienega Music Co.. So for all the boogie-lovin’ blues and rock fans out there….if you got that boogie-woogie in you and you gotta let it out….do it….a-how-how-how-how!!!

On a side note, the length of copyright protection to a registered work has changed twice since 1909, first with the Copyright Act of 1976, and again with the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (A.k.a. The Sonny Bono Act).

Fun fact- ZZTop filmed the video to legs a block from the house I grew up in.

It was a big deal in Panorama City.haha

https://youtu.be/eUDcTLaWJuo

This is exactly why Phylos is doing their project - according to the GQ article. To establish that these strains have been in the hands of many people, ie public domain, for a period time longer than these patents could have existed, therefore making them essentially void before they are fully issued.

I merely going by the language in the article.



dank.Frank

brown_thumb said:

I intend no disrespect but why do many folks write "would of" instead of "would've"?

Click to expand...

Would it not be of greater correctness for those of which you speak of to write "would have", as I believe abbreviations, like the one mentioned are only truly acceptable when used in spoken word my good man! Never the written! Jolly good laugh though! JOLLY GOOD!

I'm just bustin ya balls buddy!lol

Edit: that's how my interpretation of a dude with a big ass brain talks!haha

Human intervention is not, the frankinscience
That is plaguing our food supply. No I do not like
A courporate type situation & Mj .. I Smoke in order to deal with the
with the comericial word they try to create daily

dank.frank said:

This is exactly why Phylos is doing their project - according to the GQ article. To establish that these strains have been in the hands of many people, ie public domain, for a period time longer than these patents could have existed, therefore making them essentially void before they are fully issued.

I merely going by the language in the article.


dank.Frank

Click to expand...

Any links to that article by chance, bud?