the world's largest production site

[slumdog80]

 

[slumdog80]

 

[SuperSilverHaze]

...it is sad but true but i foresee most of my battles being with IP in the courts....med-man

I would hope not b/c it will cost 6 fig.'s to defend your Intellectual Property.......or defend against infringement.

 

[med man]

hey super silver haze

not if there is capital to be retrieved, and a smart lawyer on a % :-)

canada has pretty awesome IP protection. even if you arent officially copywritten or trademarked :-)

either way, i am sure out of 24,000,000 g a year we can put aside a IP protection fund for the whole company, ya think?

med-man

 

[SuperSilverHaze]

Canada may have favorable IP laws for those not fully protected but thats not the case elsewhere.

the money will be there to pay a legal team no doubt, good luck.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

What exactly are you so concerned about getting jacked? What is it about blowing up greenhouses that's proprietary?

 

[Texas Kid]

I was actually curious about the same thing, I know quite a bit about intellectual properties including trademark, copyright, and patent infringement litigation from a past life and unless I'm missing something there really isn't anything here that rises to an actual case..maybe if you've trademarked an actual strain name or something but that's the only thing that might even come close and that would be a total waste of time and money to defend..no process patent case, no genetic patent case, no product patent, nothing being done would rise to proprietary intellectual properties or even close...maybe some trick packaging, I don't know

 

[Johnny Fire]

Doesn't china have no ip laws and copyright laws?.. I heard somewhere they just still ideas and make the product cheaper..? I Might be wrong tho

 

[SuperSilverHaze]

TK,

plant patents would be beneficial if you want to separate your brand of recreation/medical cannabis from others who may compete in an industry that will eventually be regulated similar to alcohol.

EDIT: JF, china does what it wants so if you outsource there you deserve to get your IP knocked off sooner than normal. plant patents are not something you knock off in a manufacturing plant.


peace

 

[Texas Kid]

I agree and there are already plant patents, nothing new there, but nothing anybody here is doing represents unique proprietary genetic work suitable for a patent in any way maybe some of the work being done in Israel but that's research lab level genetic work ..hemp producers have the best shot at it than anybody right now imo...several people in my family have many patents and they are not as protective as you would think and very very costly to secure in the first place and especially expensive defend..a design or process patent is about your only shot at protection of any kind at this level

 

[med man]

hi greenin

i have proprietary methods, trademarks

med-man

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Well THAT clears that up. Can you elaborate in any way?

I mean, I have my "proprietary methods" as well. I have a pretty specific IPM protocol, a designed nutrient program, a production regiment that works perfect for my needs. All are my own design and help the company I work for operate efficiently. I can't really imagine suing one of my helpers who helps make all this work, if they took all these methods to a different OPC and implemented them.

All these things I would consider my IP but the idea of fighting someone in court about them is downright laughable.

 

[squiggly]

no genetic patent case

Especially this. You can hold a patent on a particular gene that you've inserted--and it may even be possible to do it on a particular clone (ie its specific genetic makeup), but doing it for what most people pass off as a "strain" is a helluva stretch. Too much variability to cover there.

 

[SuperSilverHaze]

^^^^then maybe that so called strain isn't what I am talking about.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1613.html
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1600.pdf

it really doesn't matter what we all think we know unless it is first hand knowledge of plant patents.

peace

 

[med man]

Well THAT clears that up. Can you elaborate in any way?

I mean, I have my "proprietary methods" as well. I have a pretty specific IPM protocol, a designed nutrient program, a production regiment that works perfect for my needs. All are my own design and help the company I work for operate efficiently. I can't really imagine suing one of my helpers who helps make all this work, if they took all these methods to a different OPC and implemented them.

All these things I would consider my IP but the idea of fighting someone in court about them is downright laughable.

where do you work and who for

that will help me answer your question better

med-man

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I work for a dispensary group in Colorado. We're indoors, over 10k sq ft, under 100k sq ft.

 

[squiggly]

^^^^then maybe that so called strain isn't what I am talking about.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1613.html
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1600.pdf

it really doesn't matter what we all think we know unless it is first hand knowledge of plant patents.

peace

The links you provided here pretty much echo the exact point that I made.

Asexually produced plants (clones) with the same genetic makeup can be patented. IE, you can patent a specific DNA code. You can't account for variability in that code (sexual propagation). It has to be a set genetic code, or an exogenous gene, that's the requirement.

The reason you can patent plants is, specifically, because you can provide a genetic code from the 5' to the 3' end of a strand of DNA and say "I made this". Failing that you can possess a mother plant with unique characteristics that asexually produces the patented plant (an example would be some of the many apple tree varieties out there which are propagated by cloning)

There is an exception made in that an asexually produced plant which can also undergo sexual production can be covered by a patent--but it would still have to have the same genetic code. Non clonal progeny would require a second patent (unless it bore a unique gene or an exogenous gene which was, itself, patented).

I think it's totally a smart idea to patent strains, by the way--but I think it's gonna be a huge pain in the ass to do it is all. Pot doesn't lend itself to morphological differentiation easily (the way apple varieties often do, for instance). Instead you're going to have to focus on the genetic code, and that's gonna be expensive as fuck--and hard as fuck to protect.

 

[med man]

I work for a dispensary group in Colorado. We're indoors, over 10k sq ft, under 100k sq ft.

hey greenin

well, i am not too familiar with how you guys do things down there. nor am i familiar with the arrangement you have.

what i do know, universally, is protecting yourself and your work is the number one rule of business. not to sound paranoid, but i prefer he term professional. otherwise, people can learn all your moves, then kick you to the curb.

iu cant say much, but everything my company provides any is proprietry, genetics, brand names, nute formulas, methods. and if people want toi use them they need a licensing agreement. just like anything else.

and btw, i was not calling you unprofessional, i am just trying to say that standards in business were created a very long time ago for a reason, and its a shame when others dont want to follow the mistakes made by others yesterday today.

best thing to do is have a lawyer. way to many unaccountable sociopaths around theses days, esp in this industry! protect yourself and your investments by preventing any issues before they can occur, to the best of your ability

med-man

 

[GreenintheThumb]

And if the greenhouse down the street uses "your" nute formulas I don't think you can take them to court.

If they use your genetics I don't think you can take them to court either. You've been selling your genetics for a while now. Couldn't anyone have them?

I don't believe you have trademarked any of your brand names. I guess the guys down the block could use that as well. I mean even if you did trademark head-band killer couldn't the guy down the block claim he purchased those seeds and now selling the product as head-band killer wouldn't really be against the law anyway.

I guess I was wondering what exactly you were so worried about getting stolen, since what you've made (seeds) you've been selling for years. I see similar things happening in Colorado. One well known "breeder" down here linked in with a dispensary group and while he also makes arguments about proprietary methodologies and IP techniques what he really is for this company is a mascot to legitimize the dispensary. To get more of the scenesters through the door.

 

[Bongo Man]

...we are ALL jealous...