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.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."
“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.
“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.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.
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.
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
The First Word
“"This is your patent system on drugs."
[...]
"That's strange, there was supposed to be a difference."
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Decriminalize It
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decriminalize It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Decriminalize It
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but why do you use the quote deliberately? Are you writing an article or a joke?
Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be the part where he said "go away and let the grown-ups talk."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Selecting "Threaded" at the top of the comments makes it easier to follow who is responding to whom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your head and your ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEp-KkCOq_o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
steell gave you a link up above to 60 studies:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151115/02221132821/ridiculous-rush-to-try-to-patent-pot. shtml#c244
Also pointed out by Dr. Sanjay Gupta in the link I provided:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should the time be wasted on you to do that? Because you'll carefully read the study and have your mind changed?
When actual adults with open minds decide to sit down to talk they can exchange information like:
If you want to read studies why not hit non-profit advocacy sites like norml.com and read what they link to.
And once an actual adult "Thinks of the Children" they can find an article like this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/01/26/pediatricians-urge-dea-to-reclassify-medical-marijuan a-to-boost-research/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4560922/congressman-calls-dea-heads-firing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Physician! Heal thyself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
is not EVERY medicine just packaged plants???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
coconut flakes are stil coconut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
do you own yourself?
do you own your body?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This is your patent system on drugs."
[...]
"That's strange, there was supposed to be a difference."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most ironic things about this
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most ironic things about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most ironic things about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello? DEA? Please target me!
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threat from Big Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threat from Big Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sativex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kansas Drug Tax
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We let Monsanto do it...
When there is nothing left to be owned, who will buy anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sativex was granted a US patent in 2011
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sativex was granted a US patent in 2011
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you going to risk them leaving with the sample?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: "medical marijuana"
Fuck you. Do some fucking research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True cost of Marijuana
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal
https://www.newcannabisventures.com/patenting-the-plant-another-cannabis-controversy/
It appears that NOT moving to protect IP could be a bad move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to this thread
but you can all keep putting your head in the sand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]