PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS

[khyberkitsune]

Nope sorry you can't patent naturally occuring plants, try again.

Umm, look up the plant patent act of 1930, and go put your nose back into the law books.

You most certainly CAN patent a plant if it didn't exist in nature previously.

For example, I have a rosebush. You will NEVER find this genetic combination in the wild (due to the massive distances that separated the parent genetics,) and it is quite firmly patented, with a metal tag and the patent numbers. Since the two strains are so far apart that they can't be bred, but close enough that they can be grafted on to each other, and due to a plants ability to insert genes into other grafted tissue, a new bloom emerges. This grafting combination whereupon the plant itself does the genetic modification to produce something not possible in the wild is patentable.

Looking up the patent numbers shows ABSOLUTELY NO genetic marking.

If you want to know the particular type of rose I am talking about, it is called 'Dream Come True' and it is a yellow rose with pink-tipped petals.

This ends our regularly scheduled educational quip. Back to you, David.

khyberkitsune Reviewed by khyberkitsune on 09-17-2010. PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS This is a copy and paste from another forum. I thought you might want to be informed. We ALL need to becareful and know who is pushing for legalization and why.... Rating: 5

[justpics]

It is a patent on a cannabinoid which amounts to the same thing.

no it doesn't. a patent on a plant like monsanto has on their plants would make is illegal for you to breed using their plants.

If you want to know the particular type of rose I am talking about, it is called 'Dream Come True' and it is a yellow rose with pink-tipped petals.

This ends our regularly scheduled educational quip. Back to you, David.

First off, goggle says that your "dream come true rose" is,

"Patent Information:
Non-patented"



Second off, when you patent a plant in the manner you are talking about, anyone is allowed to use your patented rose to create new rose hybrids. This is hardly what's being talked about in this topic. We are discussing the ownership of specific genes, such that no one can legally make seeds using your plants. This is what Monsanto does. Take a some Monsanto GM plants with Monsanto patented genes in them, start making your own seed stock with it, and then start selling it, or just make your own seeds for future crops, see how far you get.


You don't own the genes in your "patented" variety of roses and I can use those roses to breed all I want.






And finally, you can only patent plants in this manner when you've created them yourself, or discovered them, and those plants have not been available to the public in anyway, or would not be an obvious cross that a skilled breeder would make.


In other words, all the cannabis plants that are currently out in the market could never be patented. All obvious crosses between them could never be patented.


And then, as if all that wasn't enough, the fact that you could still legally have people making seeds from your cannabis (unlike when Monsanto owns the genes you are buying), that fact that you couldn't patent any cannabis currently out there as its part of the public domain, the fact you couldnt just make a cross of publicly available cannabis...the Patent office won't even entertain patents for cannabis anyway, so it doesn't even matter.

[justpics]

it also should be noted that you can't use "plant patents" to patent something you are going to make seeds of yourself. The "patent" applies ONLY to that one specific plant. Meaning you have to clone the plant (or asexually reproduce it another way), its verified that the clone is identical to the mother, and now that one specific plant is patented, and only you may clone it.


This is not like you get a pack of seeds in the mail and they are already patented. You'd need to be given some of the actual plant tissue just to have a chance to violate the person's patent.


Really not what's being discussed here at all.

[khyberkitsune]

Google is not a verifiable source for plant patents. Too much misinformation.

Rely upon real journals. Or, alternatively, go to the Huntington Library in Pasadena, where the breed originated. Every single one has a HUGE GREEN METAL TAG that says "Protected by the Plant Patent Act, Unauthorized Propagation is Illegal."

"Second off, when you patent a plant in the manner you are talking about, anyone is allowed to use your patented rose to create new rose hybrids"

You're not even aware of the method which is used to create the strain. Characteristics of the rose don't simply 'transfer' like that.

"We are discussing the ownership of specific genes, such that no one can legally make seeds using your plants."

"You don't own the genes in your "patented" variety of roses and I can use those roses to breed all I want."

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Most of these are made by grafts and you cannot create by cross-pollination. Are you even familiar with how we do grafting for characteristic transfer? It simply doesn't work by breeding it, you HAVE to graft it.

Trying to argue about this is pointless. The simple fact is genes can be patented, or the methods of inserting said genes into a plant can be patented. As patents go, Machine or Transformation is the litmus test. Transformation is what makes this litmus test stick.

If you don't like the laws, then fight to change them. Maybe you'll understand how the system works when you have a few patents under your belt.

[justpics]

We are discussing cannabis not roses. And the plant patent process explicity states the only thing patented is the asexual prpogation of that ONE genome. Whether that be grafting or cloning in order to do it you would need the actual plant tissue to have the ability to violate the patent.

If you're talking about a patent over something that has to be grafted, it doesn't sound to me like in any way that could be diseminated to massive amounts of un suspecting growers of cannabis.

That has no bearing on this thread. No one is talking about a monsanto-esque take over by forced cloning. I don't even know how that would take place, it's silly, and hypothetical because the patent office won't take patents on cannabis so get over it.

[killerweed420]

I've always been against all patents. Yeah it might slow down research but with a lot of the shotty research done now a days it doesn't really matter.

[khyberkitsune]

Just figured I'd come back with a ntoe for justpics.

Dream Come True Rose

Dream Come True - PATENTED.

Oh, and it's NOT just asexual, but fully-sexual reproduction. Witness Monsanto suing farmers because Monsanto pollen fertilized non-GM crops.

Don't rely upon Google. The internet has biased information. Your BEST resource is the actual written law on the actual book available in your local law library.

Why, yes, I *DID* pass my bar exam. I don't even have a JD.

[justpics]

Oh, and it's NOT just asexual, but fully-sexual reproduction. Witness Monsanto suing farmers because Monsanto pollen fertilized non-GM crops.

"The Plant Patent Act of 1930 (enacted on 1930-06-17 as Title III of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, ch. 497, 46 Stat. 703) is a United States federal law spurred by the work of Luther Burbank.

This piece of legislation made it possible to patent new varieties of plants, excluding sexual and tuber-propagated plants"



The reason Monsanto can sue farmers is because they have patents on the traits, or genes which they are inserting into seed stock. This is not them using a plant patent to enforce their IP rights, this is them actually having a patent on genes, which can be spread through pollen, which they own and can sue you for just making seeds with.


The plant patent does not work that way. That's what i've been pointing out to you for the last 3 or 4 posts.


For someone to have the same legal power to sue cannabis farmers, they'd need to insert their own traits into seed stock. Simply patenting a plant which would only cover asexual propagation, wouldn't do squat!



And again, this is all academic because the patent office is not taking patents on cannabis.



And not that I give two damn shits about your stupid rose, but on your link it says that the rose has a patent status of "PPAF", which means Plant Patent Applied For.