The Ridiculous Rush To Try To Patent Pot

from the *sigh* dept

Over the years, we've had a whole bunch of posts demonstrating various industries where there is no direct intellectual property protection -- and yet where we still find tremendous innovation and competition. These include things like the fashion industry (where you can't copyright fashion designs), the restaurant industry and some others. In fact, a few years ago, a couple of law professors wrote an entire book highlighting competitive and innovative industries where there was a lack of intellectual property protection. And, yet, time and time again, we see people who show up in the areas where there's lots of competition and lots of innovation, and insist that those industries need more intellectual property protection.

The latest such industry? Apparently the legalized weed industry.

As you're probably aware, the US has been moving more and more towards legalizing marijuana, starting mostly with "medical marijuana" (and I use the quote marks there very deliberately), and increasingly opening it up for all kinds of recreational use (four states so far...). And, if you've paid any attention to the legalized pot business at all, you'd know that it's (1) a huge business with (2) tons and tons of competition and (3) an incredible amount of innovation. Lots of pot growers are trying to come up with newer and better strains, and there's a ton of other innovation going on concerning ways to ingest the stuff.

But the lawyers are descending... and they're telling people they need to "protect" everything. The article linked above, in the SF Chronicle, is ridiculous on multiple levels. It zips back and forth between patents and trademarks, doing little to explain the (vast) difference between the two. It also presents an entirely one-sided story, insisting (totally incorrectly) that "venture capitalists" require intellectual property protection to invest:
Investors, particularly those coming from the tech world, “are attuned to coming into a company and trying to secure as much intellectual property as they can quickly,” said Timothy Yim, the Startup Policy Lab’s director of data and privacy, who counsels cannabis-related startups.

“They want to make sure that you have as much of your intellectual property secured as possible” before the invest, said Kyndra Miller, an attorney whose San FranciscoCannabusiness Law practice specializes in weed clients, including Blake.
It's true that there are some investors focused on "intellectual property," but they tend not to be very good. Most of the top investors have no problem at all admitting that focusing on intellectual property is a mistake, because good venture capitalists are betting on upside. All intellectual property does is protect your downside risk most of the time. But the article just presents it as fact and keeps repeating the misleading message that locking down intellectual property is "necessary."
“A year and a half ago, we started telling people to think about (intellectual property) because this is what’s coming down the line,” said Reggie Gaudino, vice president for scientific operations and director of intellectual property at Steep Hill Labs, a Berkeley cannabis analytics lab with operations in several states. “Only in the last few months have people started to listen to what we had to say.”
Even worse, the article (again, ridiculously and misleadingly) insists that "open source" is somehow anti-business and a "kumbaya" concept, rather than a good business strategy:
“The reality is that most mature businesses have established the importance of intellectual property,” said Gaudino. “But one of the first things I noticed (in the cannabis industry) is that none of growers and breeders wanted to discuss that. They’d say, ‘No, we’re all open source,’ and the whole cannabis kumbaya stuff. And I’d say, ‘Let me know how that works out for you, because once this is legal, Big Pharma and Big Ag are going to come in here and grab whatever they can.’”
The reality is that big businesses tend to focus on intellectual property because they stopped innovating, so rather than compete, they like to use the law to block competition. And tons of open source offerings are very much about real (big) businesses, and there's no reason that shouldn't be true in other fields as well.

There's nothing wrong with folks in the industry trademarking their brand names and specific designs and such, but the idea that people should start to look to "patent" specific strains is deeply problematic:
To try to bring some order to the industry through science, Steep Hill analysts are using leading-edge technology, like a $1 million DNA sequencer, to “try to establish the genetic map of cannabis” as Gaudino puts it.

He said all of the marijuana strains found on dispensary shelves are blends “from the hand of man,” and he believes that they will be able to be patented once they are definitively mapped. In the last 1½ years, Steep Hill scientists have accumulated 1,000 samples of weed, sifting through some 400 strains that are on the market. Many of them, Gaudino said, share numerous similarities.
In other words -- using patents to limit innovation and competition, which is the exact opposite purpose that the law is intended for -- and in an industry that's already thriving, with tremendous innovation and competition. Once again, we see more evidence of how frequently patents have nothing to do with "promoting" innovation, but are used to stifle innovation and competition.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: intellectual property, marijuana, patents, pot, reggie gaudino, weed
Companies: steep hill labs


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:47am

    Decriminalize It

    Don't legalize it so the State can create a monopoly and steal from people in the form of additional tax...

    Just let whoever wants to grow it grow it... whoever wants to smoke it smoke it...

    We do not need more government in our lives... we need less

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:17pm

      Re: Decriminalize It

      Actually that is Why the legalization initiative failed in Ohio this year. The only allowed growers would have been wealthy investors with a state license.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:53pm

        Re: Re: Decriminalize It

        Actually that is Why the legalization initiative failed in Ohio this year. The only allowed growers would have been ONE wealthy investors with a state license.

        FTFY. You must have missed that part in the actual proposition.


        Years ago before Arizona legalized medical MJ a similar proposition failed when it was learned that it would require all MJ to come from one source in the southeast which happened to have legal permission from the federal government to grow MJ.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:49am

    (and I use the quote marks there very deliberately)

    but why do you use the quote deliberately? Are you writing an article or a joke?

    Please explain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:35am

      Re:

      Because "medical" marijuana is a joke. Any responsible doctor can tell you that smoking pot is completely antithetical to the practices of modern medicine, for several reasons:

      1) Real medicine is produced to a laboratory-certified grade of purity, generally mixed with inert fillers, and dispensed at a controlled dose. Weed is... well... a weed. It's not a medicinal drug; it's a plant that contains a (supposedly) medicinal drug.

      2) Speaking of laboratory-purified medicinal drugs, studies have shown that patients do not receive the same therapeutic benefits from laboratory-purified THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) that "medicinal marijuana" proponents claim the plant confers. There are really only two possible explanations for this. Either "medicinal marijuana" proponents are flat-out lying, simply looking for an excuse to get stoned, or they're telling the truth, which means there's another active ingredient in there and we don't know what it is or what its properties are yet. If the first is true, explanation then there's no such thing as medicinal marijuana, and if the second is true, then it's something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe due to unknown drug risks. (Allergies, interactions, etc.)

      3) Marijuana is frequently (though not always) ingested by smoking. Again, this is something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe, for reasons that I hope do not need to be elaborated upon in 21st century America.

      There's medicine, and then there's marijuana, but the idea of conflating the two is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about medicine.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:04pm

        Re:

        TL;DR If it's not sold by a pharmaceutical company (at a healthy markup), then it has no medicinal value.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re:

          Yes, just about any argument can be made to look ridiculous by horribly oversimplifying it and taking it completely out of context. That's why mockery is frequently considered an automatic "whoever does this first loses the debate" point, right up there with Godwin's Law.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:47pm

            Re: Re: Re:

            And any simplistic, fallacy based 'argument' (such as yours) can usually be boiled down to its simpleton core.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Nov 2015 @ 7:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Would you care to comment on what the alleged fallacy is, please?

              Not all doctor-dispensed medicines are made by Big Pharma. Indeed, my own doctor prefers to prescribe generics where he can and as long as they work I don't give a rat's.

              Since Mason made a well-reasoned argument either refute it effectively with a counter-argument or walk away. Nobody ever won an argument by bitching at people.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2015 @ 8:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                it would be easier to list the fallacies not employed by mr wheeler.

                Since Mason made a well-reasoned argument either refute it effectively with a counter-argument or walk away. Nobody ever won an argument by bitching at people.

                unfortunately, it is not a well-reasoned 'argument.' What we have here is an arrogant fool just making noise.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                alternatives(), 20 Nov 2015 @ 1:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Since Mason made a well-reasoned argument

                That would be the part where he said "go away and let the grown-ups talk."?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bill Jackson (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re:

        All the classic drugs, opium, belladonna, willow extract(salicylic acid) and so on were consumed as a misture, and did indeed vary greatly in efficacy. Turning them into drugs took careful fractionation and determination of the active ingredient.
        It is possible that there are several active components in the marijuana plant.
        Right now it is smoked, which destroys 70-80% of various components, and degrades them and makes tars which cause cancer in lungs.
        Skip to tobacco - legal, but also cancerous.
        Skip to nicotine puffers = safe way to inhale the active ingredient.
        Skip back to marijuana, extract the active ingredient(s)
        safely analyze whatever they are good for and then make each separate active ingredient available in the correct way to use whatever medical aspect it has - be it puffers or pills

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          alternatives(), 18 Nov 2015 @ 2:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Skip back to marijuana, extract the active ingredient(s)
          safely analyze whatever they are good for and then make each separate active ingredient available in the correct way to use whatever medical aspect it has - be it puffers or pills


          The issue on that idea TODAY in the US of A is one can't get funding or perhaps actually DO a study because of the "drug war" classification.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        jackn, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re:

        So, your 'argument' is really just an appeal to authority. I'll bet your motivation for fallacy has something to do with your racism.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What appeal to authority? What racism?
          I find it hard to determine who I should respond to, since there does not seem to be any sort of threaded structure here, so I can not tell if you addressed me or someone who was racist or appealed to authority?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re:

        Part of the problem with 'medical' marijuana is that all scientific studies on the effects of medicines must be approved by the FDA before the medicine can go to market.

        But it's ILLEGAL for the FDA to approve of ANY Medical Marijuana study, due to Marijuana being classified as a Schedule #1 drug, which the laws says means there's no valid medical use for it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          due to Marijuana being classified as a Schedule #1 drug, which the laws says means there's no valid medical use for it.

          And yet - there is the synthetic THC as Marintol showing the present classification of "no valid medical benefit" isn't right.

          The FAR more interesting legal attack tied to the marijuana issue would be a law to overturn Wucjard VS Filburn.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        steell (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:58pm

        Re: Re:

        Your post suggests to me that you feel yourself superior to anyone else here. Since I am sometimes wrong I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and the opportunity to learn.

        Here are a bunch of peer reviewed studies that say you are wrong.

        http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

        Please post your thoughts after a thorough review.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:24pm

        Re: Re: your head and your ass

        Please stop meeting, or stick it the rest of the way in. Your breathing is troublesome to humans.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 5:31pm

        Re: Re:

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:51pm

        Re: Re:

        On the contrary, marijuana strains of cannabis plants have been successfully used to treat anorexia, some type of tumor and even certain kinds of epilepsy.

        OF course, it's not for everyone as a treatment, but saying that the use of cannabis as a medicine isn't medicine is wrong-headed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        alternatives(), 18 Nov 2015 @ 2:51am

        Re: Re:

        Because "medical" marijuana is a joke.

        Oh really?

        Real medicine is produced to a laboratory-certified grade of purity

        No, those would be pharmaceutical drugs.

        Understanding that "doctors" practice "medicine" and how humans are NOT graded for purity, I type "define medicine" into a search engine and got:
        the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease

        it's something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe due to unknown drug risks.

        Its a good thing then all the doctors who prescribed the drugs that adverse side effects resulting in lawsuits have had their doctoring licences pulled. Vioxx, Phen-Phen, et al must have just left only responsible doctors in the field.

        Marijuana is frequently (though not always) ingested by smoking. Again, this is something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe, for reasons that I hope do not need to be elaborated upon in 21st century America.

        Really? Taking in vapours of a set of chemicals to achieve a dosing is bad? It is too darn bad the makers of nebulizers, inhalers, or even vaporizers don't know about the liability minefield they are entering.

        There's medicine, and then there's marijuana, but the idea of conflating the two is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about medicine.

        And you do? Under 'appeal to authority' arguments - why should YOU be believed with the statements you made? What are your certifications in "medicine knowing"? Cuz out of the gate the Oxford dictionary didn't agree with you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 7:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, those would be pharmaceutical drugs.

          Understanding that "doctors" practice "medicine" and how humans are NOT graded for purity, I type "define medicine" into a search engine and got:
          the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease

          Please tell me you're not really that dense. Medication (also known as "medicine" in colloquial speech, not to be confused with "the practice of medicine," which shouldn't need to be pointed out because no one actually confuses them) is pharmaceutical drugs in the modern age. It's stuff that's been properly studied and understood by scientists, rather than the traditional or "well I heard it works" folk remedies of the dark ages.
          Its a good thing then all the doctors who prescribed the drugs that adverse side effects resulting in lawsuits have had their doctoring licences pulled. Vioxx, Phen-Phen, et al must have just left only responsible doctors in the field.

          OK, you're just being intentionally disingenuous here. There's a huge difference between a doctor prescribing something that they believe is safe but actually isn't because the doctor was lied to and something that they know full well isn't proper medication. (Worth looking up: the concept of mens rea.
          Really? Taking in vapours of a set of chemicals to achieve a dosing is bad? It is too darn bad the makers of nebulizers, inhalers, or even vaporizers don't know about the liability minefield they are entering.

          No, and that's not what I said. I said smoking is bad for reasons that need not be explained, and if you seriously do need an explanation and you're not just trolling, then please go away and let the grown-ups talk.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Get this, racist troll Mason Wheeler is claiming that he's a grown up. That's rich. Here is a 'dude' that uses immature logic such as

            Medication (also known as "medicine" in colloquial speech, not to be confused with "the practice of medicine," which shouldn't need to be pointed out because no one actually confuses them) is pharmaceutical drugs in the modern age.

            I like how he tells us what need to explained (and what doesn't). Klassy for sure.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            alternatives(), 18 Nov 2015 @ 2:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            please go away and let the grown-ups talk.

            Physician! Heal thyself!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 12:22pm

        Re: Re:

        humans have been in contact with marijuana for thousands of years, but somehow only industrially processed marijuana is medicinal??
        is not EVERY medicine just packaged plants???

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          a canned pineapple is still a pineapple
          coconut flakes are stil coconut

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bill Jackson (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          There are a few drugs that are used as they come from plants.
          Salicylic acid, was turned into Acetyl Salicylic acid(aspirin) and Opium from poppies has evolved into many derivatives, and the fungi, in their battle against bacteria gave us penicillin and hundreds more from other fungi and their lab variations but most drugs in use now have come from scanning large numbers of compounds by mass screening method to find activity.

          Gene sequencing looks like it will create the next wave of antibiotics, via synthesis and CRISPR methods that can use cells as factories for this and that.

          The problem is the work needed to verify that a new drug is safe can cost $500 million. A number of drugs fail this screen and that is why the new drug pipeline is empty, almost.This can be paid by taxes or high drug prices while they are on patent. What would you choose? no testing or government pays?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 5:51pm

        Re: Re:

        1) Real medicine is produced to a laboratory-certified grade of purity, generally mixed with inert fillers, and dispensed at a controlled dose.


        What is a controlled dose. Being given a months supply in advance. That sounds like a controlled dose.

        How do you feel about aloe vera. should i kill my plants and only use pills recommended by 7/10 doctors and you

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      I agree. I have a couple friends with cancer and cannabis helps with pain, appetite, and nausea due to chemo.

      There is also much evidence and study concerning Epilepsy and using cannabis to reduce length and frequency of seizures.

      Please don't make light of a very real medicine just because others use it for recreational purposes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:50am

    "This is your patent system."

    "This is your patent system on drugs."

    [...]

    "That's strange, there was supposed to be a difference."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:53am

    Can you patent something that is still illegal on the federal level?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      This.... is an interesting question actually.

      Not weed specifically, but the idea of patents on illegal things. It would be an interesting way to stack charges on someone if the prosecutors could claim, in addition to 'brandishing a deadly weapon' people were charged with 'Violating patent #71437355 - A procedure for causing intimidation using a firearm', held obviously by the NYPD. Heck, the medical community is used to locking up drugs with uses obvious for decades, if not centuries. Just give Big Pharma a nice bit of exclusivity for 'heroin'.

      Sure it won't actually change anyone's habbits, methods, goals or intentions, but it'll give more charges to entice a plea deal.

      Lets face it... dumber patents are enforced.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:54am

    The most ironic things about this

    There's some very ironic things about trying to bring in patents/trademarks into marijuana, in the US especially.

    1) Marijuana is still very much illegal under US Federal law. That means the Federal government could at any time still prosecute the people who use marijuana, even in the states that 'legalized' it.

    2) Therefore, by trying to patent marijuana, an illegal product, investors and businesses are basically telling the Federal government "I'm breaking the law and you can arrest me for it".

    3) While Obama is unlikely to go after such people, some of the people running for president (such as Chris Christie) have made clear they will enforce Federal Marijuana bans and prosecute people if they win in 2016.

    4) Somehow, I'm doubtful the Federal Government would grant a patent on something that's clearly illegal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:57am

      Re: The most ironic things about this

      I guess you're right, once christies in, its all over.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:18pm

      Re: The most ironic things about this

      Whether you doubt it or not, the USPTO will currently issue patents on IP that is illegal under federal law. Ask them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:56am

    ...are blends “from the hand of man,” and he believes that they will be able to be patented once they are definitively mapped.

    Just like earth, once we map it, you can't copy it, we mapped it damnit, it ours now. oh wait, thats just the map, so I guess their map will have some protection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:13am

    Sounds like the final episode of the series "Weeds". It jumped ahead several years and the family had become wealthy when pot became legal and they had previously filed some patent or trademark on their strain of weed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tom Mink (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:15am

    Hello? DEA? Please target me!

    I wonder how many of these lawyers are going to offer defense services for people and businesses that register with the government as sole sponsors of criminal enterprises. No matter how things shake out on the legalization front, I'm sure the eventual status will be limited in some fashion. Whoever tries to patent a strain that falls outside of the guidelines is suddenly on the hook as the producer of any amount that's found in circulation.

    Even if federal enforcement remains lax, who would want to take on the liability of taking ownership of specific strains? If cops in Nebraska test a shipment and find that it is your intellectual property, how much extra legal wrangling is it going to take to maintain that you aren't responsible for trafficking it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Doug (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:53am

    Threat from Big Business

    I picked up on the scare tactic Gaudino used, that Big Ag and Big Pharma would come do the patenting if the small players don't. I agree with Masnick about the ridiculousness of patents in this area and how they kill innovation, but this threat seems like a real risk. It's the system perpetuating the system. If you don't do it, someone else will and then you will be hosed. That's another of the perversities of the patent system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Reggie Gaudino, 17 Oct 2016 @ 2:00pm

      Re: Threat from Big Business

      The scare tactic was to motivate the cannabis industry. Here's the point all of you "experts" fail to realize. Steep Hill is an analytic testing lab. We don't grow. We don't breed. We don't produce ANYTHING. we test. we test for potency, we test for safety, we do genetic research to help OTHER's do their job better. We don't care WHO owns the patents or WHO grows, cause at the end of the day we will still test the product. We will still offer marker assisted breeding to ANYONE who wants to use our services. So if the cannabis industry DOESN'T wake up and play by big business rules, it doesn't hurt Steep Hill. So.... patent or not at your own peril. Im just offering my view point as someone who's spent the last 20 years in Intellectual Property and happens to be a genetic researcher, with a plant background. I just MIGHT have a unique perspective, or i might not. either way... i have no skin in the game, other than, no matter who owns, it... I test it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    k-h, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:24pm

    Sativex

    The new trials of medical marijuana in NSW Australia is going to use Sativex(TM) from GW Pharmaceuticals at US$124 per vial.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:07pm

    Soros

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:13pm

    Kansas Drug Tax

    In the state of Kansas drug dealers are required to pay a tax and affix a stamp on it. The purchase is anonymous. This does not mean pot is in any way legal here. It only means if you are busted and have not paid this tax they will pile tax evasion charges in addition to dealing. Knowing the IRS you would probably get more prison time for the tax. The IRS took down Al Capone when he was too smart to get convicted for all the mob crimes he was responsible for. Here is the link on the official Kansas government site:
    http://www.ksrevenue.org/perstaxtypesdrug.html

    In Kansas possession of anything less than an ounce is a misdemeanor. On a first offense and no one does any jail time for it. They put you on probation and require you to complete drug rehab and get tested weekly at your own expense. This is only if the ounce is in one bag. If it split into smaller amounts they can charge you with dealing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:15pm

    Cannabis can be patented in the US under both plant patents and utility patents, and either could be used to stifle competition. And while some companies may resort to IP protection because they've stopped innovating, others use it to enable greater access to solo feeding at the trough. Oink, baby.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:16pm

    Cannabis can be patented in the US under both plant patents and utility patents, and either could be used to stifle competition. And while some companies may resort to IP protection because they've stopped innovating, others use it to enable greater access to solo feeding at the trough. Oink, baby.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bill Jackson (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      if someone develops a truly new cannabis, he could get a patent, however, there are dozens of good strains that are more than one year old and can not be patented,

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re:

        Completely correct about new strains and their patentability. Dozens of good strains actually overstates it a bit. The goldfish also thinks the bowl is the ocean. Being illegal really damaged the quality of cannabis bred.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:40pm

        Re: Re:

        I think one struggle that these people would have is proving inventorship. Sure, map the marijuana, but mapping it is not inventing it.

        Another struggle would be proving that any particular kind of marijuana does not occur in nature. Frankly, the guy who wrote the original article seems like he is smoking dope.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 2:32pm

    We let Monsanto do it...

    I'm sure this will pass, just as we have allowed Monsanto to patent "roundup ready soy beans", I'm sure we will allow companies (probably a Monsanto subsidiary) to patent "Mind Blowing Sativa".

    When there is nothing left to be owned, who will buy anything?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nothing (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 4:38pm

    Sativex was granted a US patent in 2011

    Patents like this are strange. The USA patented cannabinoids (in general) in 1998 (US6630507 B1). Sativex is a simple tincture of cannabis. Such tinctures were widely prescribed in the US prior to prohibition. Bayer and Lilly produced several pharmaceuticals based on "Indian Hemp" and "Cannabis Americana". The scare quotes around "medical" in this context are unnecessary. The human endocannabinoid system is evolutionarily conservative. It's DNA firmware. The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide is a neurotransmitter that permits an embryo to communicate with a uterus (among other things). Humans wouldn't exist without it. The cannabis plant has been cultivated by humans for millennia... not just for fiber, but also for dietary supplementation.

    GWPharma uses tissue culture to "clone" several different strains. They run a giant grow operation. When harvest time comes, they chop the plants and extract the medicinal components by bathing them in supercritical CO2 for a few hours, evaporate the solvent, then mix the goopy residue with ethanol and propylene glycol. They fill a spray bottle with it and call it a pharmaceutical drug... Profit! The ratios of cannabinoids and terpenes are what makes each strain unique. Different strains have very different physiological effects. THC is just one of many phytocannabinoids produced by the plant that exert their effects in a synergistic manner in conjunction with the various terpenes also produced by the plant (google "entourage effect"). I'm not a patent attorney, but I wouldn't be surprised if strain profiles are the basis of how they believe they can use the patent system to their advantage. There are an infinite number of possible strains that can be produced by man. Patent worthy? Time will tell. It might not matter.

    It's also worth noting that some breeders are keen to vigorously defend the fruits of their labor, but aren't able to use legal methods to do so. This falls over into trademark territory... DJ Short is the creator of the legendary Blueberry strain. He's stated in interviews that he doesn't like it when people hijack the name of his strains for random junk crosses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:09am

      Re: Sativex was granted a US patent in 2011

      extract the medicinal components by bathing them in supercritical CO2 ... Different strains have very different physiological effects.

      By varying the temp, pressure and co-solvents you can select for different products to be extracted.

      Pick a plant for pain reduction and then select for that set of chemicals VS the "couch lock" ones and BAM! - a less liver damaging pain reduction solution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:42am

    if you own yourself you should own your boddy.
    if you own your body you should be able to decide how to maintain it (food/medicine).
    whoever regulates what you can and cannot do with your body, he is the owner of your body.

    do you own your body?
    do you own yourself?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:44am

    is monsanto going to risk getting shot by invading your backyard to sample if your MJ is of THEIR patented stain?

    Are you going to risk them leaving with the sample?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 6:44am

    RE: "medical marijuana"

    Mike and Mason;

    Fuck you. Do some fucking research.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 9:01am

    So the lawyers are saying weed growers should turn into Monsanto, and patent all their crops. I'm so sick of people trying to patent living entities.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bill Jackson (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 11:07am

    True cost of Marijuana

    Unrestricted growth of Marijuana would tend to lead to a genetically mongrelized crop with lower average THC and be prices at pennies per pound. There is a possibility that a sterile hybrid could be bred that would capture high THC as well as other attributes, so that breeders would have to buy new seed every year? I do not know enough about Marijuana genetics to know of and if sterile hybrid is at all possible. The seed hybridizers would have areas where they bred pure seed via controlled piollination.

    Local growers could propagate non hybrid versions, but they would have to bag the female plants in some way to keep pollen out, and let air and CO2 in. Some plant baggers bag each flower cluster.
    They then spray some pollen from the desired strain on each set of florets to make the seeds for next year

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alan, 18 Nov 2015 @ 1:41pm

    Rebuttal

    I posted a rebuttal to this article here:

    https://www.newcannabisventures.com/patenting-the-plant-another-cannabis-controversy/

    It appears that NOT moving to protect IP could be a bad move.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Reggie Gaudino, 17 Oct 2016 @ 1:36pm

    Response to this thread

    so...have any of you actually LOOKED at the patent record? there are already patents that claim not strains but WHOLE lineages of strains. Issued in the last year.....

    but you can all keep putting your head in the sand...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.