Quote Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
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.