Patented genetics

[bobman]

yea, there's a ton of grey area in this case.

The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category. The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case.

 

[SOTF420]

Who is the dude who sold the big collection of genetics from all over the world to the big pharma company?

 

[Dalaihempy]

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?

In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land with the seed he
had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired Monsanto investigator
analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy Schmeiser's land, and the
company found evidence of its patented genes in the plant tissue. When
Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto fees for use of its patented herbicide
resistance technology, technology he neither bought nor wanted, Monsanto
sued him. According to a report on the trial (www.percyschmeiser.com),
Monsanto sought damages for patent infringement totaling $400,000. This
included about $250,000 in legal fees, $13,500 for technology fees, $25,000
in punitive damages and $105,000 in the profits Schmeiser realized from sale
of his contaminated 1998 crop.

Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser was heard in a Canadian court June 5 - 20, 2000.
According to reports, Monsanto never directly tried to explain how their genes
got into Schmeiser's field. In fact, the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture
magazine, quoted Monsanto attorney, Roger Hughes, as saying, "Whether
Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all." In other words,
Schmeiser's fields were contaminated by Monsanto's GM technology, and it
didn't matter if Schmeiser was aware of the contamination or not. They were
going to make him pay for it! Percy Schmeiser said, "It was a very frightening
thing because they said it does not matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their
property... if I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto headquarters) and contaminate
their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be
put in jail and the key thrown away."

On March 29, 2001, nearly three years since the contaminated canola was
discovered in Schmeiser's field, Canadian Judge W. Andrew MacKay agreed
with Monsanto that it did not matter how its genes got onto Percy Schmeiser's
fields; the farmer was still guilty of having them without having paid for the
privilege. (You can read the entire decision at http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca ). Sadly,
as part of the damages, the farmer also lost 40 years of work improving his own
canola seed line, as his crop was confiscated.

As you might imagine, the decision has had a chilling effect on farmers here and
around the world. The Washington Post reported that a National Farmers Union
spokesman said the organization has been following the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser
case "...with apprehension. We're extremely concerned by what liabilities may
unfold for the farmer, particularly with cross-pollination of genetically modified plants."
The National Farmers Union represents 300,000 U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Monsanto has filed hundreds of similar patent infringement lawsuits against farmers
in the U.S. and Canada. Some of those farmers in North Dakota and Illinois are
counter-suing the company for deliberately causing genetic pollution and then suing
its victims. Win or lose, many face financial ruin from the court battles alone.

The Percy Schmeiser case, and others ongoing and to come, do not bode well for
farmers, or even backyard gardeners, here or abroad. The idea that individuals
can be held legally and financially responsible for the fate of patented pollen and
seed blown by the wind or carried by insects in open field conditions is simply
absurd. In fact, Monsanto knows it and maintained that all a farmer has to do if
he or she discovers Monsanto's patented plants growing on their land is to call the
company and they will come out and take care of the problem.

http://www.zetatalk.com/food/tfoox127.htm

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm


The Monopolization of Biodiversity: Terminator Bioscience and the Criminalization of the Harvest


http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol9.3/wolf.html



Apart from the environmental and health risks posed by GMOs, there’s an additional evident risk: planting GM corn will cause its pollen to contaminate indigenous corn strains. And once the gene patented by Monsanto makes its way into native corn strains through cross-pollination, the corporation will be able to make Mexican farmers pay royalties every time they plant a seed, even though that seed was developed over thousands of years by their ancestors.


http://www.rel-uita.org/agricultura/transgenicos/el_maiz_mexicano_en_grave_riesgo-eng.htm

Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_saved_seed_lawsuits.asp

 

[ShroomDr]

Canadian Judge W. Andrew MacKay

Im so glad the the US supreme court has said that corporations are allowed to make campaign contributions.

I am also in favor of changing the start of the constitution to We the Corporations. Sure you could make the argument that We the People are the three biggest words on the document, but i just think the founding fathers decided they would have ran out of paper if they continued with that font size.

 

[joe fresh]

In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land with the seed he
had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired Monsanto investigator
analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy Schmeiser's land, and the
company found evidence of its patented genes in the plant tissue. When
Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto fees for use of its patented herbicide
resistance technology, technology he neither bought nor wanted, Monsanto
sued him. According to a report on the trial (www.percyschmeiser.com),
Monsanto sought damages for patent infringement totaling $400,000. This
included about $250,000 in legal fees, $13,500 for technology fees, $25,000
in punitive damages and $105,000 in the profits Schmeiser realized from sale
of his contaminated 1998 crop.

Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser was heard in a Canadian court June 5 - 20, 2000.
According to reports, Monsanto never directly tried to explain how their genes
got into Schmeiser's field. In fact, the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture
magazine, quoted Monsanto attorney, Roger Hughes, as saying, "Whether
Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all." In other words,
Schmeiser's fields were contaminated by Monsanto's GM technology, and it
didn't matter if Schmeiser was aware of the contamination or not. They were
going to make him pay for it! Percy Schmeiser said, "It was a very frightening
thing because they said it does not matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their
property... if I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto headquarters) and contaminate
their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be
put in jail and the key thrown away."

On March 29, 2001, nearly three years since the contaminated canola was
discovered in Schmeiser's field, Canadian Judge W. Andrew MacKay agreed
with Monsanto that it did not matter how its genes got onto Percy Schmeiser's
fields; the farmer was still guilty of having them without having paid for the
privilege. (You can read the entire decision at http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca ). Sadly,
as part of the damages, the farmer also lost 40 years of work improving his own
canola seed line, as his crop was confiscated.

As you might imagine, the decision has had a chilling effect on farmers here and
around the world. The Washington Post reported that a National Farmers Union
spokesman said the organization has been following the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser
case "...with apprehension. We're extremely concerned by what liabilities may
unfold for the farmer, particularly with cross-pollination of genetically modified plants."
The National Farmers Union represents 300,000 U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Monsanto has filed hundreds of similar patent infringement lawsuits against farmers
in the U.S. and Canada. Some of those farmers in North Dakota and Illinois are
counter-suing the company for deliberately causing genetic pollution and then suing
its victims. Win or lose, many face financial ruin from the court battles alone.

1. 

 

[bobman]

one for the good guys

Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto
In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

 

[joe fresh]

one thing im wondering, if cali votes yes for legalization.....how could they patent a product the federal gov't still views illegal?

 

[SOTF420]

GMO pot is the real devil's weed!

 

[Dalaihempy]

Well from were i sit no one should have the wright to own any genetics from were i sit now a hybrid is what a creation of 2 or more strains now lets take the modern cannabis genetic pool most are growing there made up of SK / haze / nl / afghan or kush for the most part now if say one person owned the wrights to these genetics they would own the lot correct.

So do they also own the parent plants that created these lines bet they do.

So if we took it to a different level if you or i holding any of these genetics made seed then would they not if they could demand payment for using a plant they feel is theirs.


Female seeds if made correctly and the plants a true female producing only female plants taking out the male is a way to control the market as is spreading unstable genetics you know like the ones most sell now.

 

[SOTF420]

You can self a female plant no sweat so female seeds dont fix it really but good points you made otherwise man and I am high as well lol

 

[bobman]

joe-i don't think they can in that scenario.

Dali-anything you could accomplish through normal breeding or occurs naturally in the plant would not be patentable. If someone would genetically alter the plant to be spider mite resistant that would be patentable.

 

[joe fresh]

and would sell like crazy among large comercial growers.....i mean large as in acres....


i mean anyone growing in that size....could find a plant that was geneticly modified to be bug and mold resistant.....how could they not afford to do so.....

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Dali-anything you could accomplish through normal breeding or occurs naturally in the plant would not be patentable. If someone would genetically alter the plant to be spider mite resistant that would be patentable.

Exactly. A PVR has nothing to do with genetically modifying a plant.
You do understand the differences here, yes hempy?
Kinda like forcing a female to produce male stamen and pollen hasn't anything to do with modifying it's gene pool causing hermies to be prevalent.

Although a good try, we can still grow all of the PVR seed we want to without worrying one bit. It is totally legal to do so without repercussion. Only when we try to market the product, or use the name, will we find trouble.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Female seeds if made correctly and the plants a true female producing only female plants taking out the male is a way to control the market as is spreading unstable genetics you know like the ones most sell now.

More nonsense. Do you even grasp what this issue is all about?

And if cannabis were legal most places, then you would easily see PVR's being issued to folks who hold the parent genetics to many varieties...but cannabis is not legal, thus the name pirating that goes on within the culture. You do grasp this concept, yes?

 

[Nor'Easter]

my god I have to read on but do I agree with hoosierdaddy for once? the verdict is still out stay tuned!

 

[mriko]

As far as I know no Cannabis varieties have been "patented" by GW Pharma or anyone else.

This is not what GW' founder says :

"The pharmaceutical industry is a business, and everybody seeks to patent their processes, materials and products," he says. "We've spent a lot of our own money and investors' money developing these products, and we would not have done this if there was no chance to make profits. Nobody in the industry was seriously looking into cannabis research when we first started. We've spent five years doing research, and Hortapharm was doing work for ten years before that. If we had not done the work, there would have been little advance in cannabis research. Now that we have done the work, some other companies want to copy that, and we have to protect ourselves. We deserve to make a fair return on our investment, and that's why we pursued patents for our plants, extracts, processes, and delivery devices."

Would GW take legal action against a pot grower whose marijuana plants resembled GW's patented plants?

"Of course not," Guy said. "But if somebody breaks into our glasshouses or laboratories and steals some of our plants or products, we would take action against them. We're not the police. We aren't worried about people growing plants at home. We're not patenting all known strains of cannabis. Frankly, a lot of these peoples' fears borders on paranoia. If people get into trouble for growing cannabis, it won't be because of my company, it will be because of the laws."

From : http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2919.html

Irie !

 

[El Jimador]

Just saw this in the news this morning:
From Acapulco Gold To Albino Rhino: The Marijuana Trademark Land Rush

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010...alino-rhino-the-marijuana-trademark-land-rush

 

[Dalaihempy]

More nonsense. Do you even grasp what this issue is all about?

And if cannabis were legal most places, then you would easily see PVR's being issued to folks who hold the parent genetics to many varieties...but cannabis is not legal, thus the name pirating that goes on within the culture. You do grasp this concept, yes?

Mate i understand what is at stake here and have for quiet some years people that know me away from the boards can tell you i told them as far back as 2002 2003 that the cannabis industries is gearing up to take control be it a few people we are talking billions of dollars here you bring in fem seeds slowly remove peoples ability to breed stable lines or even having lines that will remain stable after a few generations is benefiting who.

Growing cannabis as a young guy we had stable pure true breeding lines fact no seed stores but we got hold of amazing genetics then the indoor revolution started faster hybrids offered people went for them now why is it few pure stable lines got offered look at the modern Geno pool not one pure line of old is offered.

Cannabis community moves closer to having this plant free and what are we seeing a few large company's trying to pastern strains that they don't have a right to and the market full of unstable hybrids and now full of chemically made fem seeds ow how advancements has benefited the plant and the people that grow this plant.

 

[Benefit]

Patent is good. But the main is share it free for people who need it.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

A swami as well are ya? lol...kewl.

Look, hempy...I have been around longer than you have and I know the culture quite well. And I also know that it is full of ignorance and misinformation. Lots of it pushed forth by folks like you, who have been around for awhile which tends to lead others to think that your opinions may be spot on...but I have seen time and time again where you are doing nothing but spreading bad information and out and out bullshit on an early and often basis.
You often get mad when people challenge the information you put out, and start belittling what they have offered the community. That shit may fly over at Shanti's crib, but here folks are tired of bullshit and misinformation. It is harming our culture, and at a time when we need to cull the dipshits and stupid stuff in lieu of a more informed and intelligent community. Our battle is harder when it has to carry the burden of so much ignorance. The general public is ignorant enough as it is.

I'm not really sorry for being so blunt, because this has been gone over with you ad infinitum...and it is time you put up or shut up. Your opinions be damned. Let's see some substance.