GW Pharmaceuticals grow room

[Morcheeba*]

no there is a difference...having a plant that can not be owned as intelectual property is what is key....my point is simple, it should be no different that growing any other farm crop.....if anything, growers should band together and form a union like the milk producers have done..but this would be only possible if it was 100% legal...

you are aware that Plant Patents are NOT a result of canna-lobbyist or the like....aka big pharma lobbying.

so you want Cannabis legal and treated like every other agriculture then you invite those business minded people to look at how they can make a profit and IMO a portfolio of patented strains is how you protect your profit.

I agree that growers should ban together to influence laws / regulations to preserve a patient/individual right to grow but good luck getting it done.

and you got my point regarding alcohol and even though it is hard for new brews to gain any shelf space or to buy adequate advertising it in no way prevents those entrepreneurs from carving out a niche for themselves.


peace

 

[Harry Gypsna]

and you got my point regarding alcohol and even though it is hard for new brews to gain any shelf space or to buy adequate advertising it in no way prevents those entrepreneurs from carving out a niche for themselves.


peace

You can buy your Ham and Cheese at the supermarket, or you can go to that tiny little deli who specalise in only ham and cheese, and who have 77 different hams and 127 cheeses. Costs more than the supermarket, but you know where the extra pennies went.

 

[joe fresh]

you are aware that Plant Patents are NOT a result of canna-lobbyist or the like....aka big pharma lobbying.

so you want Cannabis legal and treated like every other agriculture then you invite those business minded people to look at how they can make a profit and IMO a portfolio of patented strains is how you protect your profit.

I agree that growers should ban together to influence laws / regulations to preserve a patient/individual right to grow but good luck getting it done.

and you got my point regarding alcohol and even though it is hard for new brews to gain any shelf space or to buy adequate advertising it in no way prevents those entrepreneurs from carving out a niche for themselves.


peace

yes, its my point from the begining, is that we trade one form of illegality for another....either way its us who loose in the end..

but as far as patenting strains...to my knowledge it cant be done unless the are GMO....but i could be wrong, but this is what i thought...that you would actually need something proprietary in the genetic or seed/cutting that makes it unique and of YOUR doing, not something you found in nature

 

[Morcheeba*]

...
with beer and spirits, the ingredients are free to the public to grow(brewers yeast, barley...grains...ect..)...its the middle men who brew this concoction of ingredients that makes all the $ and owns market space....with weed, the grower does not need these "middle men brewers" for anything, as soon as the product is cut and dry its ready for sale...no need to transform it..but you can(hash, oil, wax..ect)."..

maybe read the below info or from the link to see that some of the crops you listed are patentable. true, no middleman needed to brew your own or grow Cannabis but do any brewers use proprietary hops or barley ect. and if so are they available to the public for home use?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/pgdic/Probe/v2n2/plant.html


"Plant Variety Protection:
An Alternative to Patents


Published in Probe Volume 2(2): Summer 1992
Janice M. Strachan
Plant Variety Examiner
Plant Variety Protection Office
USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service
Beltsville, MD

Development of a new plant cultivar or variety, either by "traditional" breeding methods or by "modern" molecular modification, requires a lot of time and effort. To recover the costs of this research and development, the breeder may seek to obtain exclusive marketing rights for the new variety. Keeping it a trade secret is one way to do this, as well as obtaining either a plant patent, utility patent, or plant variety protection. The method chosen depends on the specific benefits and limitations of the protection, and the costs involved. Plant variety protection is a good choice for many breeders.
History
The 1930 Plant Patent Act first allowed for patenting of asexually reproduced cultivars (except tubers). By the 1960's, some European countries enacted plant breeders' rights laws. It was demonstrated that sexually reproduced varieties were uniform and stable enough to be included in these laws. During the 1960's several attempts were made to enact similar protection in the United States, including a proposal to revise the Plant Patent Act to include sexually reproduced plants. These early attempts were unsuccessful.
The Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act was enacted on December 24, 1970. Its purpose is to "encourage the development of novel varieties of sexually reproduced plants" by providing their owners with exclusive marketing rights of them in the United States. The requirements of protection are that the variety be uniform, stable, and distinct from all other varieties. Fungi, bacteria, and first generation hybrids are excluded from PVP protection. Varieties sold or used in the United States for longer than 1 year or more than 4 years in a foreign country are also ineligible for protection.
A Certificate of Protection remains in effect for 18 years from the date of issuance. The owner may specify that the variety be sold by variety name only as a class of certified seed, as defined in the Federal Seed Act. Once so specified, the designation cannot be reversed. There are two exemptions to the rights granted. One exists to allow farmers to save seed for use on their own farm or to sell it to their neighbors. Recent court decisions have defined who is a "farmer" and how much seed can be saved. Another exemption allows research to be conducted using the variety. This allows for the free exchange of germplasm within the research community.
PVP Office
The PVP Office is responsible for administering the PVP Act. It is organized within the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Commissioner Kenneth Evans heads the PVP Office staff, which includes five plant variety examiners and three associate examiners. The PVP Office accepts approximately 270 applications per year. Since 1971, over 2,700 Certificates of Protection have been issued in over 100 crops. Almost 75 percent of them were issued within 24 months of filing the application. Some certificates are no longer in effect due to being abandoned, withdrawn, or expired, but no PVP Certificate of Protection has been overturned in a court of law.
How To Apply
To request protection for a new variety, the applicant completes an application packet. The complete packet must contain the following items: exhibits A, B, C, and E, a seed sample, and a fee.
Exhibit A. The origin and breeding history of the variety are presented, including genealogy, breeding method, selection criteria, and evidence of uniformity and stability. Variants, predictable deviants from the standard variety description, must be described and their frequencies stated.
Exhibit B. The novelty statement lists specific characters in which the subject variety differs from all other varieties in the crop. Evidence for the differences is also included when the differences are not obvious.
Exhibit C. An objective description of the variety is given. The PVP Office has developed forms for use in describing varieties of many crops. They are constantly improving older forms or creating forms for new crops. Breeders and other knowledgeable persons are consulted before a draft form is finalized.
Exhibit E. The basis of the applicant's ownership is stated by describing how ownership was obtained.
Seed Sample. A voucher specimen of 2,500 viable seeds (85 percent or greater germination rate) is required when the application is filed. The sample is stored at the National Seed Storage Laboratory in Ft. Collins, CO. The applicants may be asked to replenish this sample if the germination rate or sample size fall below adequate levels during the protection period.
Fees. The filing fee ($250) and the examination fee ($1,900) are payable to the Treasurer of the United States. The PVP Office is completely funded by user fees, so fees may occasionally be raised to cover operating costs.
Additional information concerning the variety can by given in exhibit D. Information in this exhibit may include test-cross results, trial data, isozyme or other molecular test results, photographs, possible uses for the variety or its products, specific descriptive information not disclosed elsewhere in the application, or anything the applicant feels may be useful. This section may be omitted if the data is placed in another exhibit.
Examination Process
Once a complete application is filed in the PVP Office, the application is assigned to an examiner. The examiner conducts a literature search of the crop and gathers descriptive information on varieties from grow-out trials, release notices, seed catalogs, PVP applications, and other published sources. The examiner maintains the variety descriptions in computerized crop databases. Over 35,000 different varieties in more than 100 crops are currently in the system. The examiner then uses the appropriate database to determine the novelty of the application variety.
To be granted a Certificate of Protection, a variety must be novel based on its distinctness from all previously existing varieties, its uniformity, and its stability. These items are disclosed by the applicant in his application packet. The PVP Office does not perform grow-out trials, therefore, the applicant must gather and report all information that is required to complete the application. This information may include complete descriptions of similar varieties, color chart references, statistical analyses, photographs, plant specimens, or other information that the examiner needs to complete the evaluation of the application. If additional information is requested by the examiner, the applicant is given sufficient time to provide this information. Extensions of time can be requested by the applicant.
If the variety is found to be novel, then the certificate fee ($250) is requested and a Certificate of Protection is issued. A short summary of the basis of novelty is published in the quarterly Official Journal. The most effective novelty statement, both in exhibit B and in the Journal, is one in which the applicant states the most similar previously existing variety, and then lists the characters by which his or her variety differs from that "most similar" variety. If the application variety differs from the most similar variety, it follows that it must differ from all other varieties.
Current Issues What is the minimum difference between varieties that indicates "distinctness"? This question has led to many discussions within the PVP Office, its advisory board, and the breeding community at large. The PVP Act states that a novel variety is distinct when it "clearly differs by one or more identifiable morphological, physiological, or other characteristics ... from all prior varieties of public knowledge." The meanings of "characteristic" and "identifiable" are purposefully vague in this definition to allow for future advances in knowledge and methodology...."




the graph doesn't copy n paste well but the article is a bit longer.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

yes, its my point from the begining, is that we trade one form of illegality for another....either way its us who loose in the end..

but as far as patenting strains...to my knowledge it cant be done unless the are GMO....but i could be wrong, but this is what i thought...that you would actually need something proprietary in the genetic or seed/cutting that makes it unique and of YOUR doing, not something you found in nature

I don't know about elsewhere, but here in the UK, conventionally bred plants do have protection, for example fancy hybrid Roses, or Sungold tomatoes. Every seed/cutting that gets sold, the people who own the rights get paid.

 

[supermanlives]

man I want a ham and cheese sandwich now. if corn went gmo weed will too definitely . the big boys will jump in so fast as they already most likely have been doing it a long time awaiting the day. Monsanto monster weed coming to you

 

[joe fresh]

maybe read the below info or from the link to see that some of the crops you listed are patentable. true, no middleman needed to brew your own or grow Cannabis but do any brewers use proprietary hops or barley ect. and if so are they available to the public for home use?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/pgdic/Probe/v2n2/plant.html


"Plant Variety Protection:
An Alternative to Patents


Published in Probe Volume 2(2): Summer 1992
Janice M. Strachan
Plant Variety Examiner
Plant Variety Protection Office
USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service
Beltsville, MD

Development of a new plant cultivar or variety, either by "traditional" breeding methods or by "modern" molecular modification, requires a lot of time and effort. To recover the costs of this research and development, the breeder may seek to obtain exclusive marketing rights for the new variety. Keeping it a trade secret is one way to do this, as well as obtaining either a plant patent, utility patent, or plant variety protection. The method chosen depends on the specific benefits and limitations of the protection, and the costs involved. Plant variety protection is a good choice for many breeders.
History
The 1930 Plant Patent Act first allowed for patenting of asexually reproduced cultivars (except tubers). By the 1960's, some European countries enacted plant breeders' rights laws. It was demonstrated that sexually reproduced varieties were uniform and stable enough to be included in these laws. During the 1960's several attempts were made to enact similar protection in the United States, including a proposal to revise the Plant Patent Act to include sexually reproduced plants. These early attempts were unsuccessful.
The Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act was enacted on December 24, 1970. Its purpose is to "encourage the development of novel varieties of sexually reproduced plants" by providing their owners with exclusive marketing rights of them in the United States. The requirements of protection are that the variety be uniform, stable, and distinct from all other varieties. Fungi, bacteria, and first generation hybrids are excluded from PVP protection. Varieties sold or used in the United States for longer than 1 year or more than 4 years in a foreign country are also ineligible for protection.
A Certificate of Protection remains in effect for 18 years from the date of issuance. The owner may specify that the variety be sold by variety name only as a class of certified seed, as defined in the Federal Seed Act. Once so specified, the designation cannot be reversed. There are two exemptions to the rights granted. One exists to allow farmers to save seed for use on their own farm or to sell it to their neighbors. Recent court decisions have defined who is a "farmer" and how much seed can be saved. Another exemption allows research to be conducted using the variety. This allows for the free exchange of germplasm within the research community.
PVP Office
The PVP Office is responsible for administering the PVP Act. It is organized within the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Commissioner Kenneth Evans heads the PVP Office staff, which includes five plant variety examiners and three associate examiners. The PVP Office accepts approximately 270 applications per year. Since 1971, over 2,700 Certificates of Protection have been issued in over 100 crops. Almost 75 percent of them were issued within 24 months of filing the application. Some certificates are no longer in effect due to being abandoned, withdrawn, or expired, but no PVP Certificate of Protection has been overturned in a court of law.
How To Apply
To request protection for a new variety, the applicant completes an application packet. The complete packet must contain the following items: exhibits A, B, C, and E, a seed sample, and a fee.
Exhibit A. The origin and breeding history of the variety are presented, including genealogy, breeding method, selection criteria, and evidence of uniformity and stability. Variants, predictable deviants from the standard variety description, must be described and their frequencies stated.
Exhibit B. The novelty statement lists specific characters in which the subject variety differs from all other varieties in the crop. Evidence for the differences is also included when the differences are not obvious.
Exhibit C. An objective description of the variety is given. The PVP Office has developed forms for use in describing varieties of many crops. They are constantly improving older forms or creating forms for new crops. Breeders and other knowledgeable persons are consulted before a draft form is finalized.
Exhibit E. The basis of the applicant's ownership is stated by describing how ownership was obtained.
Seed Sample. A voucher specimen of 2,500 viable seeds (85 percent or greater germination rate) is required when the application is filed. The sample is stored at the National Seed Storage Laboratory in Ft. Collins, CO. The applicants may be asked to replenish this sample if the germination rate or sample size fall below adequate levels during the protection period.
Fees. The filing fee ($250) and the examination fee ($1,900) are payable to the Treasurer of the United States. The PVP Office is completely funded by user fees, so fees may occasionally be raised to cover operating costs.
Additional information concerning the variety can by given in exhibit D. Information in this exhibit may include test-cross results, trial data, isozyme or other molecular test results, photographs, possible uses for the variety or its products, specific descriptive information not disclosed elsewhere in the application, or anything the applicant feels may be useful. This section may be omitted if the data is placed in another exhibit.
Examination Process
Once a complete application is filed in the PVP Office, the application is assigned to an examiner. The examiner conducts a literature search of the crop and gathers descriptive information on varieties from grow-out trials, release notices, seed catalogs, PVP applications, and other published sources. The examiner maintains the variety descriptions in computerized crop databases. Over 35,000 different varieties in more than 100 crops are currently in the system. The examiner then uses the appropriate database to determine the novelty of the application variety.
To be granted a Certificate of Protection, a variety must be novel based on its distinctness from all previously existing varieties, its uniformity, and its stability. These items are disclosed by the applicant in his application packet. The PVP Office does not perform grow-out trials, therefore, the applicant must gather and report all information that is required to complete the application. This information may include complete descriptions of similar varieties, color chart references, statistical analyses, photographs, plant specimens, or other information that the examiner needs to complete the evaluation of the application. If additional information is requested by the examiner, the applicant is given sufficient time to provide this information. Extensions of time can be requested by the applicant.
If the variety is found to be novel, then the certificate fee ($250) is requested and a Certificate of Protection is issued. A short summary of the basis of novelty is published in the quarterly Official Journal. The most effective novelty statement, both in exhibit B and in the Journal, is one in which the applicant states the most similar previously existing variety, and then lists the characters by which his or her variety differs from that "most similar" variety. If the application variety differs from the most similar variety, it follows that it must differ from all other varieties.
Current Issues What is the minimum difference between varieties that indicates "distinctness"? This question has led to many discussions within the PVP Office, its advisory board, and the breeding community at large. The PVP Act states that a novel variety is distinct when it "clearly differs by one or more identifiable morphological, physiological, or other characteristics ... from all prior varieties of public knowledge." The meanings of "characteristic" and "identifiable" are purposefully vague in this definition to allow for future advances in knowledge and methodology...."




the graph doesn't copy n paste well but the article is a bit longer.

so to my understanding of this reading is that, to get a patent on a variety of a plant, is must have distict traits that differ it from the others....so it has nothing to do with the dna of the plant its self but rather the distinct traits?

ah yes i see now, a little more intricate than i thought...

but the brewers dont need special barely, what they have is their special recipe for brewing....same as someone with a special recipe for cocacola...thats where i was thinking of patents, but yes you guys are correct about a certain variety being bred and being patentable...

I don't know about elsewhere, but here in the UK, conventionally bred plants do have protection, for example fancy hybrid Roses, or Sungold tomatoes. Every seed/cutting that gets sold, the people who own the rights get paid.

yes i get what you guys were saying, i was primarily only thinking of monsanto patent on the corn seeds that are modified withstand pesticides, and other crop patents like that....


but i guess this brings me to another question/conclusion...if a breeder takes 2 plants that does not have a patent, and breds them, can they then take the offspring an patent them? what then happens to the parent plants, can other ppl use them to breed or would they infringe on a patent because they are copying the other guy by using the same parent plants in their breeding projects?

 

[TickleMyBalls]

who's "they"?

The people who have interests in what is being discussed in this thread. They are hidden in plain sight here. Those who know, know. The end game has been decided for quite some time, and the actual truth is that it will probably take a major global coup, with hundreds of millions of people working together, and tens of billions of dollars to stop it.

 

[Floridian]

Either they have their lights way to high or I been doin it wrong all along.

 

[supermanlives]

wasn't roof clear?

 

[Harry Gypsna]

wasn't roof clear?

indeed it was, but even if it was a warehouse, when you have dozens of lamps, the crossover from all the lights means you have to raise them to the roof, or your plants willl frazzle. the huge warehouse grows in NL, Quite often the lamps will be 10 feet above the plants tops.

 

[Morcheeba*]

...but i guess this brings me to another question/conclusion...if a breeder takes 2 plants that does not have a patent, and breds them, can they then take the offspring an patent them? what then happens to the parent plants, can other ppl use them to breed or would they infringe on a patent because they are copying the other guy by using the same parent plants in their breeding projects?

im not knowledgeable enough to answer your question but that is where the little guy looses..........not enough money to have adequate legal representation to explain to the patent examiner why a new patent should be granted.

here is a link to the uspto site regarding plant patents and a lil excerpt.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1

"What is a plant patent?
A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's heirs or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so reproduced. This protection is limited to a plant in its ordinary meaning:

• A living plant organism which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or genotype, which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which can not otherwise be "made" or "manufactured."
• Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants are comprehended; sports or mutants may be spontaneous or induced. Hybrids may be natural, from a planned breeding program, or somatic in source. While natural plant mutants might have naturally occurred, they must have been discovered in a cultivated area.
• Algae and macro fungi are regarded as plants, but bacteria are not.

The information presented in this publication is tailored to apply to and is limited to patents on asexually reproduced plants. While the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) does accept utility applications having claims to plants, seed, genes, etc., such practice is beyond the scope of this publication. General information regarding utility practice can be obtained by calling PTO Information Services Division at 1-800-786-9199, or from a registered patent attorney. Intellectual property protection for true breeding seed reproduced plant varieties is offered through the Plant Variety Protection Office, Beltsville, Md., which should be contacted for information regarding intellectual property protection for such crops.
Provisions and Limitations

Patents to plants which are stable and reproduced by asexual reproduction, and not a potato or other edible tuber reproduced plant, are provided for by Title 35 United States Code, Section 161 which states:
Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190).
The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided.
As noted in the last paragraph of the statute, the plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which developed or discovered by applicant, and which has been found stable by asexual reproduction. To be patentable, it would also be required:​

• That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area.
• That the plant is not a plant which is excluded by statute, where the part of the plant used for asexual reproduction is not a tuber food part, as with potato or Jerusalem artichoke.
• That the person or persons filing the application are those who actually invented the claimed plant; i.e., discovered or developed and identified or isolated the plant, and asexually reproduced the plant.
• That the plant has not been sold or released in the United States of America more than one year prior to the date of the application.
• That the plant has not been enabled to the public, i.e., by description in a printed publication in this country more than one year before the application for patent with an offer to sale; or by release or sale of the plant more than one year prior to application for patent.
• That the plant be shown to differ from known, related plants by at least one distinguishing characteristic, which is more than a difference caused by growing conditions or fertility levels, etc.
• The invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention by applicant.

Where doubt exists as to the patentability of a specific plant, a qualified legal authority should be consulted prior to applying to assure that the plant satisfies statutory requirements and is not exempted from plant patent protection. "


peace​

 

[joe fresh]

Either they have their lights way to high or I been doin it wrong all along.

wasn't roof clear?

yes the roof was clear, looked to be supplemental lighting in a large greenhouse or something...but they also seem to be using gavita or the same style reflectors...small reflector from that high up would be ok, light would be concentrated and make a hot spot if too low...large reflectors in a room like this would just eat alot of light imo

 

[Harry Gypsna]

Here's an example of a "Dutch" grow in Spain

The lamps are higher than a hippie on the third day of Glastonbury.

 

[Hillbillie]

I do not think they will be able to compete. Look what happened to beasters .. Cheap looks good to the average smoker ,, gets them high ..I think these type of companies will fall short of the demand for quality.

 

[theJointedOne]

I do not think they will be able to compete. Look what happened to beasters .. Cheap looks good to the average smoker ,, gets them high ..I think these type of companies will fall short of the demand for quality.

i dunno, coors light sells more units than heady beers, even though most real beer drinkers prefer the heady stuff..

i think its easy to forget that most of the country/word smokes mersh garbage brick..

 

[Harry Gypsna]

i dunno, coors light sells more units than heady beers, even though most real beer drinkers prefer the heady stuff..

i think its easy to forget that most of the country/word smokes mersh garbage brick..

Mr average smoker, is why there is no good hash in my neck of the woods. Nobody wants to pay 45 quid for an eighth of yummy Caramello, when they are used to buying an ounce of dogshit bar for the same price.