Patented genetics

[Centrum]

Because it is not true at all, first of all you can't patent genes found in nature, you have created nothing New, as required.
Novelty
The first requirement for any invention is that it is novel in the absolute sense. That is, it was not available to the public in any way before the filing date of the patent, and was not described in any publication before that date either.
Obviousness
When is an invention obvious?
Even if an invention is found to be novel in the strict sense, it may still be unpatentable because it is considered to be obvious to a person skilled in the art. It should be stressed that the term obvious is a legal term of art, and is used in a sense quite different from the ordinary meaning of the word. Further, the legal interpretation of the term obviousness varies from country to country.
Industrial application
The third requirement for patent protection mainly aims to distinguish between aesthetical and scientific inventions. The term "industry" should be interpreted very broadly; it also includes agriculture. It does exclude methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practice on the human or animal body. Perpetual motion machines also fail to meet this requirement.
In the US, the third requirement is referred to as "utility"; however, interpretation and scope of this term is generally the same as that of the industrial application. International patent treaties often use "utility" and "industrial application" as synonyms.

Fear is a funny thing, it causes people to see things that don't even exist, and to spread their fears to others to protect them from things that are not real....
I bet you believe Philip Morris has already bought farmland in Northern California so they can flood the market with their new GM Cannabis varieties that don't get you high and are spiked with the same nasty chemicals they put in cigarettes, so you need to smoke more and more.
The only problem is the story is not true, but don't let that stop you from spreading FEAR.
What a joke....

-SamS

Sam there was more intelligence and wisdom in your short paragraph then anything i have ever read in 6 years on icmag all together.

 

[joe fresh]

from my understanding, they could patent a certain strain....like pineapple kush, which i believe was already patented by some cali growers(in the doc "how the weed won the west" i think).....but they cannot patent a plant....


similar to chicken farmers...in the south of the US, farmers borrow more than 500k to start up a chicken farm, but they have to sell to a local processing plant/distributor(Cargill....ect), the problem here is that the distributor wont buy any other chickent except their genetic lines of chicken(geneticly modified chicken) and they have patents on these chickens. the farmer cannot reproduce these chickens, and must follow what ever the distributor says or risk loosing their contract....seen all this in the documentary Food Inc......they can patent a strain of geneticly modified chickens but cannot patent the species as a whole.

or like corn farmers, who (if they want a good crop) has to buy their corn seeds from a company that has patented corn seed, its patented for many reasons like its good production or kernel size, ect....again they can patent the strain of corn they created, but cannot patent the species of corn as a whole



EDIT- to SAMSKUNKMAN......geneticly modified strains (as in modifying genetic make up of plants "dna" structure)could be patented....go to the store and pick up a pack of carrot seeds, or Corn....look closely on the pack and it will say a patent number, and will also say "illegal to reproduce without permission" or something like that.....atleast in canada....


so to sum this all up....imo yes a strain may be patented, but not a plant......but this would mean that anyone could creat a strain and patent it, making it illegal for anyone else to reproduce it or not allowing anyone to use it for breeding without permission, and a % of the profit most likely.

the only problem i see with this is once all(or most) strains have been patented then their wont be much choice about where to buy your seeds, or who they come from...and if you want to reproduce your own then that would be a violation of a patent.

just my 2c

 

[CARE giver]

Either way, this community alone would have most of the mothers/seeds of their "patented genetics".

 

[medicalgreen]

you can't patent genetics, however, you can trademark strain names and then sue people who sell medicine sold by that name not certified by the trademark holder. just ask bret bogue. he has trademarked every name apothecary genetics has bred and plans to have hologram labels for dispensaries that they personally provide with that "trademarked" weed. no patent necessary, the effect is the same...

 

[CARE giver]

the only problem i see with this is once all(or most) strains have been patented then their wont be much choice about where to buy your seeds, or who they come from...and if you want to reproduce your own then that would be a violation of a patent.

just my 2c

In this situation I imagine people would go to other countries and get landrace genetics. Then they would create new strains and sell seeds.

But could you get some legal document, saying: no one can patent these strains?

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Hello to everyone.. Sam With the CBD info would supplement UV Light,LED, or other light source help with over all development of these.

No

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Hey forest 20
In order to have a higher percentage of CBD CBN or other medicinally active constituants or regulators of THC one needs to procure seed stock which can express such variations. This can be complicated by the fact that some of these constituants are coded for on the same loci as THC and during recombination the allelic expression is dominated by the THC gene stock. There are a few ways one can deal with this and most would be helped if the plant Cannabis was removed from any illegal stature.

LEDs and all sorts of nifty lighting would help since landraces - where CBDs and CBNs are hiding- grown indoors are very finicky, and again it would help if the plant was legal because then we could all grow baseball fields of it.
Possibly this could help our incessant need to use oil, too.

KA

The plant does not make CBN. CBN is a degradation product from the other Cannabinoids being broken down. For high CBD you need a plant that produces high CBD.

-SamS

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

Is it just me or is there alot of 12- 15 post members coming on and spreading fear among the community. This is all about cali legalization and this is the third thread today that i do believe was made to spread fear and stop cali's legalization.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I'm laughing my ass off.

If cannabis is outlawed and you can goto jail for it, and millions of people grow it, does anyone actually think those same growers will say to themselves, "Oh shit, Monsanto has a patent on the Gods Gift, I better not grow that one, scratch it, alright, the trainwreck, that's patented too, we'll have to get rid of that one"

So the law breaking cannabis growers are going to fear what now? A lawsuit?

Hell, I would just keep growing the same strains and do what all the dispensaries do...and CHANGE THE NAME!

If I were going to worry about anything, it would be Monsanto created Terminator Cannabis seeds being sold to clubs then spread out without anyone's knowledge. When that happens, then we can worry about something serious.

Do you have any idea how the technology works?
V-GURT and T-GURT are the two terminator methods used, neither can be used without anyones knowledge.
In the first case the plant will not set seed, in the second it requires a secret formula that activates the plant to allow seed set. So if I slipped you terminator seeds you could not make any seeds, end of story. But these plants could still be cloned, and as that is how most people grow today, the terminator seed is irrelevant and is just used as scare tactic by people opposed to it.

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

you can't patent genetics, however, you can trademark strain names and then sue people who sell medicine sold by that name not certified by the trademark holder. just ask bret bogue. he has trademarked every name apothecary genetics has bred and plans to have hologram labels for dispensaries that they personally provide with that "trademarked" weed. no patent necessary, the effect is the same...

Only to those that don't understand the difference between a "trademark" and a plant protected under UPOV, PVR Plant Variety Rights. They are not the same...
In the first case just change the name and grow the plant. In the second case the variety is protected and can't be used, made or sold by others without permission of the owner.

-SamS

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Sam, I think we will find that the UPOV only dictates to the marketing of a protected variety.
In the case of reproducing seed, a farmer can produce, store, and propagate all he wishes for his own uses, as long as he does not market the seeds (or clones for that matter) further without permission of the rights holder. A claim good for 20 years only.
I don't think we see anything past common patent infringement rules when looking at PVR's.

*Just an afterthought....but when applying for a PVR, we must provide the seeds to the application office for further testing by the office to insure that the claimed variety is indeed reproducible within the next generation. This is done by them actually propagating the seeds provided by the applicant. Considering current federal laws in the US and most countries, doesn't this make the PVR thing sort of moot for cannabis?

 

[bobman]

Breeding no patent
Genetic modification = patent

Everybody is talking about the case that went through the supreme court. Those plants were changed to be roundup resistant on a genetic level. This could not be accomplished by breeding. I may be wrong but I do not think straight breeding, to bring the most out of a plant, will not be patentable. Adding something to the plant that does not naturally occur will bill patentable. I think right now the only patented plants are roundup resistant and resistant to certain insects. They are still working on increasing harvests and shortening harvests.

 

[medfinder]

Of course it is...rumor and speculation...nothing more.

We've got to get it completely legalized first. If it remains controlled, I'm positive there will be prohibitions on growing it yourself. Just like the prohibition on making distilled spirits.

I think no matter the future of Cannabis, we "connoisseur" growers will always be underground...in the shadows.

I ve been looking for the gw pharma patents..hhmm..not too much except some scattered reports of them getting seed lines from the dutch.|}


and this info from site..


Licensed and controlled cultivation

GW is licensed by the UK Home Office. Cultivation of GW's first Cannabis plants began in August 1998. Selected seedlings are maintained as clones. Clones are genetically identical, thus ensuring that the ratio of plant constituents is fixed within narrow limits. Clonal propagation does not involve genetic modification.

GW's botanical research team continues to develop new chemotypes. These will produce the raw material bases for future pharmaceutical research.

GW's Cannabis plants are grown in highly secure computer-controlled glasshouses. All aspects of the growing climate, including temperature, air change and photoperiod, are computer-controlled and the plants are grown without the use of pesticides. Careful control of the growing environment ensures that GW’s plant material is grown to very strict pharmaceutical standards and that growth is phased to ensure continuity of supply.

Cultivation capability has been increased to cater both for commercial supply of our first product Sativex and research quantities of novel chemotypes for the production of other medicines. Pharmaceutical production capacity has also been scaled up, both in-house and through external contractors, to supply tens of thousands of patients.

High levels of chemical consistency are important in applications made to medical regulatory authorities. Routine laboratory analysis demonstrates that GW’s botanical raw materials meet strict specifications of quality.

 

[bobman]

when are we going to see the first sativex named cross. I am sure someone is already brewing up a story about how she was stolen or sneaked out of the facility by a noble cannabis warrior. Sound familiar to anyone.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

G, what a novel concept...

 

[Nicoli]

This is just lols.

Yeah how are you going to prove someone has the exact same strain that you supposedly patented and they are selling it under another name.. You cant.

lols.

 

[ShroomDr]

Someone should spell out exactly what Monsanto is currently doing.

Monsanto takes a vegetable, (lets use corn), and genetically modifies (GMO) it to be insect resistant. They own a patent on these seeds, and thus the genes used to create the insect resistance.

They sell these seeds to farmers, who must sign a contract that they will not save the crops seed. These seeds basically outproduce other non-GMO seeds, require less pesticides (read: $) etc. If you are caught saving the seeds from your own crop, monstanto can (and does) sue you. Monsanto has teams of investigators roaming around the US looking for farmers saving seeds.

(All of this seems real shady, however you can always argue, 'The farmer signed the contract not to save seeds'. To me its a dirty tactic, and essentially makes the farmer addicted to monsanto for seed every year. Its absurd that a corporation can insert itself as a cog in the food system.)

But i havent even gotten to the worst part. Lets say you decide to forgo the monsanto GMO seed; you grow your own corn seeds. At this point, you can do as you have always done, and you can save your own seeds, you have no contract with anyone. But if your neighbor is growing the GMO seed, and it some of it pollinates your crop, now your seed carries their patented GMO traits, AND THEY WILL SUE YOU!

Here is one such case http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
I think ive seen other cases on Documentaries/PBS or/and 60 Minutes.

This scenario doesnt really have parallels to cannabis. I dont think monsanto would sue a backyard gardener; but if Philip Morris switched from poison to resin, who knows.

----ON A TANGENT----

I thought ive read that (insert well known cannabis persona) was working with Sativex (or some other company) to develop a strain that couldnt be bred, (pheno produces sterile seeds; and had high THC, low CBD). Thus the clone/pheno could not be bred. I cant remember what the exact process was, but it didnt seem complicated (and had parallels to other fruits/vegetables).

 

[ShroomDr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocarpy
and possibly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenospermocarpy

seedless watermelon plants are grown from seeds. The seeds are produced by crossing a diploid parent with a tetraploid parent to produce triploid seeds.

Thus patenting your marijuana genetics.

 

[bobman]

Originally Posted by ME
But i havent even gotten to the worst part. Lets say you decide to forgo the monsanto GMO seed; you grow your own corn seeds. At this point, you can do as you have always done, and you can save your own seeds, you have no contract with anyone. But if your neighbor is growing the GMO seed, and it some of it pollinates your crop, now your seed carries their patented GMO traits, AND THEY WILL SUE YOU!

I dont think this part is true. I read the case a few weeks ago and I will reread to make sure but I believe unless you knowingly acquire the genetics or pollen you are not liable.

 

[ShroomDr]

I dont think this part is true. I read the case a few weeks ago and I will reread to make sure but I believe unless you knowingly acquire the genetics or pollen you are not liable.

I dont know if this has been resolved, and/or if this is an isolated incident. I would imagine if it wasnt true Monsanto would sue 60 Minutes for defamation. The 60 minutes piece sure made them look like chicken shit bastards, id sue them if it wasnt true.

Here it says canola not corn.

"For 40 years, Percy Schmeiser has grown canola on his farm near Bruno, Sask., about 80 km east of Saskatoon, usually sowing each crop of the oil-rich plants with seeds saved from the previous harvest. And he has never, says Schmeiser, purchased seed from the St. Louis, Mo.-based agricultural and biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola, a man made variety produced by a controversial process known as genetic engineering. And, like hundreds of other North American farmer, Schmeiser has felt the sting of Monsanto's long legal arm: last August the company took the 68-year-old farmer to court, claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. Unlike scores of similarly accused North American farmers who have reached out-of-court settlements with Monsanto, Schmeiser fought back. He claims Monsanto investigators trespassed on his land -- and that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing canola-laden trucks. "I never put those plants on my land," says Schmeiser. "The question is, where do Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?"