@fly007 thank you very much for honoring me with your first post! Welcome to OverGrow! The place grows on you, and the people are pretty cool too.
The beans are getting close now.
Haha man, here's more of them. I defoliated a little, but they're still looking good!
Thanks for this. I have some background here, and some thoughts.
It's a colonial view of plant intellectual property. Doesn't apply to almost any recent cannabis strains because they are not uniform or stable enough to meet the big ag definitions, regardless of how inbred they are. They're also not distinctly new, especially if we consider it from the perspective of prior art and patents. That's part of your "gray area."
Big ag definitions for this are the applicable standard and precedent. Cannabis strains/cultivars/crosses perform so vastly different in different terroir, that I don't think they'd ever be covered and enforced by these protections.
Speaking of enforcement, I see no mention of mechanisms or remedies, only parties. In the US, this whole notion don't have no teeth fer weed "cultivars." Maybe some rando gamed the system for one of these designations up north, but I can't see how it could withstand any challenge, unless your brief is lacking key components of the Canuck statutes.
Also, the link at the bottom of part 1 doesn't work. Get the editor to paste in the full URL, not just the abbreviated text.
Lastly, the whole idea of breeder's rights couldn't apply in this situation, even if they were applicable to cannabis and enforceable, as bodhi has gone on record stating that he fully authorizes anyone to use any of his commercially-released strains for any crossbreeding, without limitation or restraint, specifically mentioning he encourages people to make F2 to share with or sell to anyone (per applicable rules/regs in your country/state/locale, etc etc, yadda yadda yadda).