What's new

Corporate whores salivating on 420

Gmack

Member
"How often do you have a chance to create an industry around something that already has demand?"
You haven't created anything the word your looking for usurp... your stealing an exiting industry
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/420-marijuana-profit-investors-1.4077310

Thousands of Canadians are marking 420 — the 20th day of the 4th month of the year, which pot activists have designated as a day to celebrate marijuana — by lighting up in public at events across the country.

But away from the haze, Bay Street celebrated its own version of 420 by scrutinizing investments with an eye to making money legally from weed.

At the Toronto Stock Exchange, employees of Horizons ETF Management rang the opening bell to commemorate the day — and to promote the company's marijuana-themed exchange traded fund, launched earlier in April.

In a ritzy ballroom at the nearby Royal York Hotel, hundreds of investment bankers and private investors heard presentations from the executives of some of Canada's biggest legal marijuana firms.

Legal weed is coming, but how will market work?
Many of the attendees were stoked about pot's profit-making potential.

"How often do you have a chance to create an industry around something that already has demand?" said Steve Ottaway, managing director of investment banking with GMP Securities, which hosted the conference.

"It's extraordinarily rare to have that. And how rare is it for Canada to be sitting in a lead position with all these companies, which are rapidly evolving and growing in the space? That's pretty much unheard of."

Window of opportunity

The Canadian financial industry is getting a head start on investing in marijuana while its U.S. counterparts remain largely stuck on the sidelines, Ottaway said, because of prohibitive U.S. federal drug laws.

"We're in a situation where the 800-pound gorilla is still tied down," he said.

It's not just big investment banks that are paying attention. Private Canadian investors are also making bets on marijuana.

New way to bet on legal marijuana hits TSX
Brett Wilson, chairman of Prairie Merchant Corporation and former star of CBC's Dragons' Den, said he started paying attention to the marijuana sector last July.

Brett Wilson
'This has now become inevitable,' investor and philanthropist Brett Wilson says of marijuana's potential as a legitimate investment. (Terri Trembath/CBC)

"It was just one of those moments when a light went off, and I said, 'You know what? This has now become inevitable,'" said Wilson.

Wilson agreed with Ottaway's statement that investing in marijuana companies was an unusual opportunity.

"The last time was called Prohibition," he quipped.

Don Pittis: Business lessons from Prohibition era abound
Still, Wilson expects that only some of his marijuana investments will play out in his favour.

"I'm going to be wrong. Some of them are going to zero; some of them are going to triple," he said.

"It's no different than Dragon's Den. I did 60 deals on air; I closed 30 of them. Two of them will pay for all 30."

Cannabis Conference
Financial professionals on Bay Street celebrated a 420 of their own on Thursday, at a marijuana conference focused on legalized pot's huge investment potential. (Solomon Israel/CBC)

Canadian marijuana company executives presenting at the conference were focused on creating an atmosphere of trust with potential investors, said Mike Gorenstein, president and CEO of Cronos Group. Cronos owns two Health Canada-licensed producers outright and has interests in others.

"I think what people assume when they hear about a conference like this, is there's going to be a bunch of guys wearing Birkenstocks … This is actually a real, legitimate industry," said Gorenstein.

"There are institutional people, there are good stewards of capital, there's not these crazy risks associated with it that people might otherwise think."

Overcoming the stigma

On Bay Street, the stigma surrounding marijuana is changing quickly.

"I've never used drugs my whole life, I'm a healthy guy — and now I'm a user of marijuana," said Eric Paul, CEO of Health Canada-licensed marijuana producer CannTrust. His company plans to go public later this year, and Paul expects "very high" demand from investors.

ANALYSIS: How high will the price of legal pot be?​​
Paul, a pharmacist and former president of now-defunct Canadian retailer Zellers, said he had a legal prescription for medical marijuana and was using it for anti-inflammatory purposes. For Paul, 420 this year has nothing to do with partying — his company was making a presentation to investors later in the day.

"We're here to present our story and our vision for the future and how we can play in both the pharmaceutical market and the new recreational market," said Paul.

A different kind of 420

John Fowler is president and CEO of marijuana company Supreme Pharmaceuticals but said he was a cannabis activist earlier in life. For Fowler, this 420 looked a little different than years past.

"Obviously, it's different having an investor crowd instead of maybe a group of students or more of a political crowd, but to me, it's a day where everyone thinks about cannabis," said Fowler.

"So, whether you're out here talking about your company or you're out trying to promote reform … this is a great day where people are thinking about it."
 

HiFiGanja

Member
Illegal weed growers/ breeders should have used their money to get dna marker testing and trademarks/copyrights on their strains this way none of the LP's could have stolen the genetics with out paying or sue them like Monsanto. Oh sorry you're crop needs to be destroyed as it has our genetics in it.
 
Last edited:

Gmack

Member
Illegal weed growers/ breeders should have used their money to get dna marker testing and trademarks/copyrights on their strains this way none of the LP's could have stolen the genetics with out paying or sure them like Monsanto. Oh sorry you're crop needs to be destroyed as it has our genetics in it.

Any idea how to go about doing that? Like if you bread your own crosses or proprietary strain could you get a patent on the genes?
 

HiFiGanja

Member
Any idea how to go about doing that? Like if you bread your own crosses or proprietary strain could you get a patent on the genes?

Well you'd probably need co-operation from lots of breeders as the 4 plant limit and seeds being illegal is killer. This is probably why they are forcing people who want to grow to only be able to buy seeds and clones from LP's as they think it'll stop the breeder market.

I'm thinking the grey market will take up the challenge and create way better strains and new ways of concentrating THC than the LP's can. Imagine if someone can breed a strain with 30-40% THC levels, the LP's won't be able to use it as there will probably be THC level restrictions but that might be just wishful thinking.
 
Any idea how to go about doing that? Like if you bread your own crosses or proprietary strain could you get a patent on the genes?

You are talking about PBR, plant breeder rights.
Users pay the "inventor" to rent their genetics, as you can not re-sell a PBR protected variety.
 

Canada

Active member
There is still a medical side to this equation. we will not be bounded by these new enforcement ,
 

Jonny Lan

Well-known member
There is still a medical side to this equation. we will not be bounded by these new enforcement ,
true but with respects to all the grey area medical stuff the new law will draw the lines. so importing seeds will be a crime.
Section 158 of the proposed bill is a good place to start.

Regardless I grew before i was medical so it don't make a difference for me
 

troutman

Seed Whore
Is it illegal to own/import Opium poppy or coca seeds?

Opium poppy seeds are legal to buy. There's many places online to buy them

Coca seeds on the other hand are very hard to get and this is compounded by the fact
that unlike most seeds. They have a very limited lifespan. They have to be planted within
a short time of harvesting off the plant of they die. Like less than a few weeks.
 

Chimera

Genetic Resource Management
Veteran
Illegal weed growers/ breeders should have used their money to get dna marker testing and trademarks/copyrights on their strains this way none of the LP's could have stolen the genetics with out paying or sue them like Monsanto. Oh sorry you're crop needs to be destroyed as it has our genetics in it.


That's not how plant breeders rights work. 99.99999% of the varieties / clones / cultivars you see in the MMAR and black/grey market growers are public domain, meaning they can't qualify for PBR. They also can't be patented.

The other 0.00001% you have never seen, because if you had seen it on the market, then it would also not qualify for PBR- you can't protect anything that has already been released to the market. Variety identifying DNA markers don't mean a damn thing in the PBR or patent worlds, and Canada doesn't recognize plant patents anyhow.

Trademarks are protected names, not the substance or material or product that is named, so anyone could take any trademarked clone (if it existed) and simply market it as something else, because the mark protects the name, not the plant. You also can't trademark names already in public use on a market.

Meaning, if you have something unique and novel, you have to be able to show that it is not only unique and novel (distinct), but also uniform and stable. This is known as the DUS test - any variety or cultivar to be registered must be distinct, uniform, and stable for the traits that define the cultivar as unique. If your cultivar passes the DUS test, you could theoretically have it registered and then control the cultivar's use through the courts by enforcing the existing PBR and licensing the use to third parties. However, since most people don't have the legal standing or knowledge base to navigate the PBR gamut, what you are suggesting is nothing more than a pipe dream.


And btw, that Monsanto story with Percy Shmeiser is one of the biggest myths with which the green media has been able to dupe the public. Shmeiser intentionally collected and planted the seeds that were tolerant to roundup (he sprayed the fields with roundup and then collected seed from the plants that lived), taking advantage of the genetic construct that conferred the resistance to the variety. The courts ruled in favour of Monsanto, because it was statistically impossible for Shmeiser to end up with 1000+ acres of plants containing the resistance construct in 95-98% of the plants without him intentionally saving and planting the seeds from the resistant plants.

Monsanto didn't own or register these varieties- they took the strategy of obtaining a Utility patent for the gene modification that led to the resistance. That way, any plant which they engineered to have the genetic construct, would be claimed and protected under their utility patent - it was the genetic construct and its function (providing a resistance to Glyphosate) that was the invention, not the variety itself. That meant that every time they engineered a new crop, they wouldn't have to go through the registration process to obtain a new PBR on the new species they bred it into, because the Utility patent protected all works containing the genetic modification. Of course the way the anti-gmo media spread the story was that Shmeiser was an innocent victim who's crop was accidentally contaminated by Monsanto's evil genes- whereas the truth of the matter was that Shmeiser himself intentionally selected for the genes because they had benefit to him (he could spray the crop with roundup and kill the weeds that reduce yield).

I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm also no fan of misinformation... and that whole story was a huge misinformation campaign that completely misled the uninformed public.
 

troutman

Seed Whore
Here's some information on Breeder's Rights in Canada for those who haven't seen them yet.

Plant Breeders' Rights... What are they?

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-breeders-rights/overview/eng/1335968583875/1335969867075

Guide To Plant Breeders' Rights In Canada


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/...verview/guide/eng/1409074255127/1409074255924

Under section #5 in the last link states:

5. Criteria Varieties Must Meet To Be Protected By Plant Breeders' Rights

All species of plants are eligible for PBR protection in Canada, excluding algae, fungi and bacteria.
The owner of a variety will be granted PBR if it can be demonstrated that the variety is:

  • New;
  • Distinct;
  • Uniform; and
  • Stable.
For example: Anything Phylos has DNA tested is off limits because it is now in public domain.
 

Limeygreen

Well-known member
Veteran
An example would be Dave Austin Rose's these are protected (I believe anyways) or say some of the wave petunias from Syngenta seeds (vegetative propagated) have Plant protection on them whereas you can buy the naturalized rugose roses and propagate as many as you want as they have no protection.

Generally these will be marked or in the description that they are protected and they actually have people checking that growers have what they purchased, the right number of tags, sales records etc. to make sure that they are not being propagated without licence.
 

troutman

Seed Whore
Untrue, sending DNA samples to a company for sequencing does not place the plant in the public domain.

Really?

I believe I saw Mowgli Holmes in a video indicating that one of the main reasons for what
he was doing at Phylos was so that the the strains would be in public domain and that
companies like Monsanto wouldn't be able to patent them.

The 44-year-old instead hopes that Phylos can work with independent and small breeders to create new strains, and take weed to a place higher than it has ever gone in its 10,000 year history with humans. They’ve also made all their data available to the Open Cannabis Project, who work to make sure cannabis strains remain in the public domain and cannot be patented.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/th...nabis-will-become-more-consistent-769550.html

Anything in that database would most likely be disqualified as
something new if the breeder further wanted to get a patent.

Try again. :biggrin:
 

Chimera

Genetic Resource Management
Veteran
Really?

I believe I saw Mowgli Holmes in a video indicating that one of the main reasons for what
he was doing at Phylos was so that the the strains would be in public domain and that
companies like Monsanto wouldn't be able to patent them.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/th...nabis-will-become-more-consistent-769550.html

Anything in that database would most likely be disqualified as
something new if the breeder further wanted to get a patent.

Try again. :biggrin:



Sequencing a plant does not put it in the public domain. At best, sequencing a plant confirms the genotype's in existence at that point in time. If that existence can be tied to the market, or a purchase, or a submission by someone selling it on the market, then that time stamp essentially shows that the genotype (and only that exact genotype- ie the clone) is present in the market.

The USPTO doesn't look at sequence data in patent filings. At best, the Open Cannabis Project data might only even be considered in a court challenge against a patent, say if some company tried to patent the high pinene clone of Blue Dream that floats around various markets. It's highly unlikely that people will be taking clones off the market, and trying to patent them... it's a fool's errand, and you are going to get caught up and found out and lose all the money they had put into it. You can't patent 'OG'.

Mowglie and I have spoken about this, and in that conversation he admitted that the DNA data does nothing more than time stamp the clone's existence at a given moment in time. As stated, it definitely doesn't make the plant public domain.

I transcribed our exchange below.

Chimera - "This is the question that none of the geneticists have been able to say: is how can that DNA data that you have generated at that time, do anything other than prove that it's just a clone that existed at that point in time. It wouldn't impact the- how would that impact the prior art? Because it doesn't show any chemotype, it's doesn't show the lineage or anything like that..."

Mowglie Holmes: "So (Chimera) asked what the hell the use the genetic data is as prior art that can block patents. So the truth is.... ...What we really need in the database that we're- so we're collecting this database of prior art, through a website called the Open Cannabis Project. We have 5 different genomics groups that are donating genomic data to serve as prior art, and the truth is that (Chimera) has a really good point; what we really need is chemotype data because these patents are being granted on the basis of chemical test data, what we really need is for all the labs to start donating their chemotype data, so we have a huge database of what plants are out there in that sense. The DNA data is not as useful as I wish it was, and I hate to admit that, but it's not - because right now they are not requiring DNA data in patent submissions. It will be useful for post-grant review challenges, it will be useful for inter-partes review patent challenges, it will be absolutely critical when we start to try to fight these patents. But until the patents- until the patent office starts asking for DNA sequence data as part of the application, searching and finding the DNA sequence data that we have, and having that be effective prior art that blocks patents, won't really happen. We need chemical data added to it. So, within the next 10 years that database is going to become really valuable. It'll be able to back a lot of challenges to patents, we've found out that if you can prove that a plant that exists now has a chemical characteristic that would have blocked a patent, even if that chemical test data wasn't available back then, you can prove that it's the same plant, it can work as prior art. And there's a lot of different ways to challenge these patents, and a lot of them do have to do with enablement, and things like that.

So, anyways (Chimera) is right, we need to collect all this data but for the next few years it's going to be the chemotype data that is a little bit more important than the genetic data. The genetic data really doesn't let you do much - you can't get a patent for (SIC) a plant if you have the DNA data, you can't take ownership, you can't grow the plant - it's doesn't let you do anything, um, so publishing all our DNA data was a pretty (undecipherable) thing to do."
 
Last edited:

troutman

Seed Whore
Sequencing a plant does not put it in the public domain. At best, sequencing a plant confirms the genotype's in existence at that point in time. If that existence can be tied to the market, or a purchase, or a submission by someone selling it on the market, then that time stamp essentially shows that the genotype (and only that exact genotype- ie the clone) is present in the market.

The USPTO doesn't look at sequence data in patent filings. At best, the Open Cannabis Project data might only even be considered in a court challenge against a patent, say if some company tried to patent the high pinene clone of Blue Dream that floats around various markets. It's highly unlikely that people will be taking clones off the market, and trying to patent them... it's a fool's errand, and you are going to get caught up and found out and lose all the money they had put into it. You can't patent 'OG'.

Mowglie and I have spoken about this, and in that conversation he admitted that the DNA data does nothing more than time stamp the clone's existence at a given moment in time. As stated, it definitely doesn't make the plant public domain.

I transcribed our exchange below.

Chimera - "This is the question that none of the geneticists have been able to say: is how can that DNA data that you have generated at that time, do anything other than prove that it's just a clone that existed at that point in time. It wouldn't impact the- how would that impact the prior art? Because it doesn't show any chemotype, it's doesn't show the lineage or anything like that..."

Mowglie Holmes: "So (Chimera) asked what the hell the use the genetic data is as prior art that can block patents. So the truth is.... ...What we really need in the database that we're- so we're collecting this database of prior art, through a website called the Open Cannabis Project. We have 5 different genomics groups that are donating genomic data to serve as prior art, and the truth is that (Chimera) has a really good point; what we really need is chemotype data because these patents are being granted on the basis of chemical test data, what we really need is for all the labs to start donating their chemotype data, so we have a huge database of what plants are out there in that sense. The DNA data is not as useful as I wish it was, and I hate to admit that, but it's not - because right now they are not requiring DNA data in patent submissions. It will be useful for post-grant review challenges, it will be useful for inter-partes review patent challenges, it will be absolutely critical when we start to try to fight these patents. But until the patents- until the patent office starts asking for DNA sequence data as part of the application, searching and finding the DNA sequence data that we have, and having that be effective prior art that blocks patents, won't really happen. We need chemical data added to it. So, within the next 10 years that database is going to become really valuable. It'll be able to back a lot of challenges to patents, we've found out that if you can prove that a plant that exists now has a chemical characteristic that would have blocked a patent, even if that chemical test data wasn't available back then, you can prove that it's the same plant, it can work as prior art. And there's a lot of different ways to challenge these patents, and a lot of them do have to do with enablement, and things like that.

So, anyways (Chimera) is right, we need to collect all this data but for the next few years it's going to be the chemotype data that is a little bit more important than the genetic data. The genetic data really doesn't let you do much - you can't get a patent for (SIC) a plant if you have the DNA data, you can't take ownership, you can't grow the plant - it's doesn't let you do anything, um, so publishing all our DNA data was a pretty (undecipherable) thing to do."

You seem to know a lot of this patent stuff. This following should be an easy question to answer.

Have you even been involved in anyway with a USPTO patent or other plant related patent or rights being granted?
By "anyway", I mean the applicant, breeder, consultant to another filing party,etc. in obtaining such patent(s).
I ask this because the average "Joe" doesn't learn about patent stuff unless they intend on doing so.
As we both know traveling thru all the paperwork loops to make that happen isn't an easy feat for anyone.

:tiphat:
 

troutman

Seed Whore
BTW: Being able to patent for anything would be very cool. :)

It would be nice talking to anyone who has successfully filed a patent of any kind for tips.

There's not enough help on doing so for the average dude. :tiphat:

Cheers
 
H

HemperorsKnight

Nah fuck patents on plant's it's for everyone not just a select group. We need to figure how to get these greedy bastards out of the fight for or rights to grow whatever cannabis strain or subspecies we want. Just my opinion though
 
H

HemperorsKnight

Don't forget about stony girls garden's who is doing similar bs she will fall off the charts of business if she keeps this up and all us others will surface where she was and ascend higher because greed isn't our motives
 
Top