If they aren’t, then in a few years they’ll just get bought by said company.
3 Likes
There is a way where we collectively have rights and they can’t acquire exclusive rights = Open Source
4 Likes
Of course, but open source exists in a world where other people can copyright their own work. Having open source rights to a particular plant does not stop them from making their own and dominating the market with it. You will never make all cannabis open source.
Look at how many people use the open source GIMP compared to the copyrighted and expensive photoshop. ‘To photoshop’ is now a verb it is so ubiquitous.
They will let you have your rights in your product, they can’t stop you, but they will have the financial backing to exploit the rights they have in their product so that does not matter. It will lead to this eventuality I have already posted.
You are free to breed your own hops and yeast and brew your own beer should you wish to but how many people do that and how many just go to the shop and buy the beer some commercial company made for them? The vast majority of people have neither the skill set nor the inclination to make their own.
How many strains of yeast, hops etc have been lost because large companies dominate the market for beer, bread etc? My guess is the majority of them. The only ones left are copyrighted and commercially viable.
How many of the general public really care?
My guess is not many as long as they can get a loaf of bread at the shops and a four pack of beer.
4 Likes
The Cannabis Breeder’s Rights ver 2.0
As hemp and cannabis become legal and mainstream, what’s lacking is a licensing framework that specifies what a farmer can do with seeds, clones, tisssue culture, etc. Until now it has been undefined the rights conferred by a breeder or grower to a farmer regarding seed saving, breeding, cloning, resale, etc. The Cannabis Breeder’s Rights is a licensing schema for hemp and cannabis genetics.
Cannabis Breeder’s Rights ver 2.0 PDF
Cannabis Breeder’s ver 2.0 on academia.edu
The Cannabis Breeder’s FAQ
http://www.leblanccne.com/cannabis-breeders-rights/Cannabis-Breeders-Rights-ver2.0.gif
Legalization and normalization is long overdue but as the plant spreads let’s not forget those who worked to create the cultivars we enjoy today. It all begins with the plant amd seeders’n’breeders need control over their genetics in the marketplace.
This issue will only loom larger as time goes on now that corporate interests have entered the market. Stop and think about the transition from selling 10 packs of regular seeds for $120 with deliberate genetic variation to foster “pheno hunting” to a mass market that wants genetically stable feminized seeds sold by the pound. For cheap.
Zulu Time is a cultivar released under Cannabis Breeder’s Rights license.
At Hempfest during a panel on The Future of Strains, DJ Short expressed concern about people taking his genetics and releasing projects that he and others were locked out of. He feared being denied acccess to his own genetics. Upon hearing DJ’s wish list Jerry Whiting proposed a Creative Commons-like solution which begat The Cannabis Breeder’s Rights.
“Can I add to that please. This really struck a bell for me because I’m curious about this whole phenomemena unfolding as it is. I have no intent; I don’t want to own my strains. I don’t want to patent it. But my biggest fear is that someone else will take my work and prevent me from working with it. And I see as the only solution to this is to make all of this public domain and open source.” [ 38:46 mark ]
(The above was copied with permission from LeBlanc CNE)
6 Likes
Mixed feelings on that (author that released the licensing scheme under CC with no-derivatives too, lol).
2 Likes
Im glad to see people commenting on this with a lot of valid points, I think keeping as many genetics as possible especially land race and heirloom varieties is a key necessity. I understand that large corporate entities will most likely end up controlling the majority of the market but my concern is in keeping a variety of genetics around before all the GMO and plant patent wars realy get up and going that way future generations are not stuck with streamlined commercial strains
2 Likes
Good question from your video, how will this (CC licensing) remain relevant for the average person in the face of things like the FDA giving a patent to a particular company for THC and CBD as a medical therapy (for cancer)?
Obviously, this is rhetorical. I don’t expect you to come up with an answer, I just thought it was a good question.
2 Likes
Breeders rights is already a real thing recognized internationally as basically the plant equivalent of copyrights, and you can register cannabis plants under this … so i dont understand why anyone would register a plant with this leblanc guy (and how would it be enforced?) when they could register their plant with their local government licensing agency
4 Likes
You’re not registering it with anyone. You are just placing the symbols on the seed packs, publishing it online, etc. It’s really up to you to use it in the ways you wish.
An example: I grow a Maui Wowie plant and produce a bunch of seeds. I want to give them away, but I don’t want them used for profit and I want attributed as the breeder. I’d put the symbol CBR: B-F-C, which would indicate to others that Breeding is allowed, they must be Free for distribution, and Credit should be given.
This same scheme is used for digital artwork and other intellectual property, like software, and has been quite successful. Courts recognize the rules as they are slowly adopted by the industry.
4 Likes
They want to confer rights to others that the “owner” does not actually have to confer.
There are several mechanisms under law and treaty that establish rights to those developing a product/work:
- Patent
- Copyright
- Trademark
And, there are specific mechanisms that cover work not typically eligible for the above three items
- Granted rights from natural monopolies (e.g. government). Plant protection act, for instance.
And, a special case that is afforded little protection if a knock-off is generated
- Trade secret
Then there are mechanisms to convey those rights to others
- Contracts and licenses
For patents, copyright, and trademarks, only one is natural. That is, only one is granted protection upon creation without the need for examination. Copyright.
The various licensing schemes (such as creative commons) are provided to clarify what copyright protections are being retained upon the release of a creative work to the public at large. They are granting certain rights that are naturally owned by the creator to others. You, as the creative individual, receive rights to protect your ownership by default on creation under law and treaty. This is copyright. Registration of copyright is not required, it is natural.
You, as the creator, have produced, 100% of the creative ingredients that the work is using or, in part, contains derived work along with your creative input. If the creative work is a derivative of another creative work, then the appropriate legalize must by in place with the source of the original creator before it is released or risk suffering the consequences. A photo, a written work, music, etc, are considered to have copyright upon creation.
For a seed, you are not granted such a rights by default. Creation of seed, a recipe, ideas, common information, processes, or creations of nature, etc do not fall under copyright. To obtain rights, a breeder, would have to apply for a patent or for other protection mechanisms as provided under law and international treaties. “The Plant Variety Protection Act”, for instance. At that point, your intellectual property is safe to be released to the public with an appended license that grants those enumerated rights onto others.
Otherwise, such licensing without a wet signature between parties has little teeth and provides no protection for either the producer or the consumer other than FUD. In fact, such a scheme, can encourage “submarine” attacks on any derivative works developed by both the producers (breeder) and the consumer since the producer is likely unable to ascertain previously protected “breeder work” and likely has not received permission from the original line breeders anyhow. Going all the way back to God (or at least to the legal limits under copyright and patents)…
What is being considered here is a mechanism to protect the financial interests of a breeder while, at the same time, trying to avoid the pain of having to actually apply for formal protection. Or, to develop wet signature contracts. Folk are looking to re-frame the pollination of plants as a creative work with natural rights. Despite the prognostication and feelings, unfortunately, it is not.
I do see the need to encourage good breeders to release good genetics. However, if they are going to go through the trouble and effort to stabilize a strain, then the added effort for formal protection is a small price to pay in that effort. As far as I can tell, applying a license mark to a pack of seed might protect the package design but it will only convey a “desire” in regards to the genetics. They don’t actually have the rights that they are trying to convey. However, purposefully stating that genetics are being released into the public domain may help protect against the patenting of derivatives on examination.
Crispr on the hand, well… hmmm.
1 Like
Thank you for that explanation. I was fuzzy on how the whole “rights” thing works. 
3 Likes
i recently was watching Kevin Jodrey. He said that he maps all his genetics with Phylos and on the Phylos “galaxy”. He does this to show he was the first to “map” these specifc cultivar genetics.
Dunno the cost, but may not practical for the average cannabis breeder.
Its scary no doubt. We fought for the plant, only for a whole lot of us to be excluded and pushed out. While others get rich. I suppose I cant blame a breeder for cashing out if its 7 figures. There’s always more flavors and effects to chase.
3 Likes
I’m looking into inbreeding strains I truly like. Wanting a garden stead of 100% Indicas an sativas
3 Likes
This is a very valid reason to map the genetics as it now becomes “common knowledge”. It “can” be a significant obstacle for the prevention of others attempting to patent and assert rights over the same or very similar genetics.
However, that by itself does not protect a breeder from others producing and selling the same genetics unless that same breeder starts the process of obtaining protection within a certain time frame of releasing the strain. And only then, if it qualifies and is something unique enough (from everything else held as common knowledge) to be able to receive such protection.
Obviously, in all of this, there is a “code” of conduct, morality, and doing what is right. But that, realistically, does not have the legs needed to stand-up under the law.
1 Like
Phyllis is near but the fine print says you can not use the data to protect plant rights , some people have even voiced concerns about the amount of data there collecting , there definetly becoming well connected in the cannabis industry. The information there gathering can be sold by them as research info , read the fine print , somebody above mentioned pre established routes of internationally protecting plant breeders rights, I would go with a accredited route and not a private company
1 Like
I assume it is because they do not provide enough genetic information. They only provide information on certain markers (not sufficient) or are they saying they prohibit you from doing so?
I havent checked the site in awile fut from what I remember reading it wasent a route I personally would take
From Phylos:
You can opt in to sharing your sequence data with the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which helps drive research. This data is also used by organizations including the Open Cannabis Project, a nonprofit with a mission to defend your intellectual property by cataloguing it as prior art. We will never share your data without your permission. Contact opendata@phylos.bio to update your data sharing preferences.
For defensive protection:
All Phylos Genotype Tests include a time-stamped report. Additionally, all submitters may choose to make their data public with the Open Cannabis Project — an organization working to preserve the diversity of cannabis and fight false patent attempts. Both are considered forms of defensive IP.
For use in obtaining formal protection:
Phylos Genotype tests alone do not make it possible to obtain a patent. That said, a time-stamped report can supplement a plant patent application filed by the creator of a unique plant.
Whether or not the limited sequencing/markers would be sufficient for either case, I do not know.
Further info on their data sharing policies:
1 Like
Well that sounds alot better then what I had read originally