My problem with say ownership of cannabis genetics jogro is that a very large percent of today's genetics all stem froma very small gene pool..
Let's just say skunk #1 .. northern lights ( any number).. haze.. and let's say a land race kush like Afghani or w/e you prefer for this ex..
Well lets be clear about what we are talking about here, because there are two things:
There is PATENT, which is legal protection of a plants GENETICS.
And there is TRADEMARK, which is legal protection of a plants BRAND NAME.
Right now, nobody can TRADEMARK any drug cannabis name in the USA. So anyone can call anything they like "Racerboy's Green" and sell it as such. Not so good for you, if you've spent ten years of your life breeding that line and currently make your living selling it.
PATENT, protects a lines genetics. So even if you were to Trademark your strain "Racerboy's Green", if the genetics weren't patented, I could still snip a clone, rename it "JoGro's Gold" then sell as many cuts as I liked. Think of Coca-Cola. . .nobody else can use the name "Coca-Cola" on their beverage, because its trademarked. However, Coke keeps the secret recipe locked up in a vault because its not patentable. . .if I find out what's in there, I can whip up an exact clone of it called "JoGro cola" and sell as much as I like.
Patents are powerful things for those that hold them, but there are two very significant limiting factors:
First of all, a patent can't be issued on something that isn't new. So Skunk #1, Northern lights, etc. . .all these genetics have been around for 20+ years, and none should be patentable now. More important, hybrids derived from these also wouldn't be patentable, because all these things have been widely hybridized already and the hybrids are in common use. Assuming this to be true, with *maybe* the exception of some of the CBD-strains, pretty much NONE of the current crop of drug strains would be patentable.
The only way a cannabis strain is going to be patentable is if its really something uniquely different. EG, someone comes up with a mutant with a weird leaf shape, or a truly novel cannabinoid profile.
Next restriction, plant patents in particular have a fairly short life. . .only 20 years from the patent application. So again, even if Skunk #1, NL#5, etc, were patented (which they probably couldn't be), their patents would have expired by now.
My biggest fear is when and if cannabis becomes fully legal and big pharma and tobacco co's jump in feet first the first thing they're going to want to do is trade mark cannabis strains.. where will small breeders be at if this were to occur ? Surel they aren't going to have d $$$ needed to pay for use of a trade marked strain in their work and the only one who will be allowed to grow and sell let's just say Newport og will be lorilard ..
See above. Trademark isn't patent. . .these are different things.
I have ZERO problem with Lorillard trademarking "Newport OG" and being the only one to sell pre-rolled cigarettes under that name. So long as the content genetics aren't patented, anyone else can sell the exact same cigarettes with the exact same buds inside. . .just under a different brand name. Trademarking really only protects brand identity. . .that can be tremendously helpful, but only if there is a brand identity to protect!
One real fear that people have is that like with websites, a few early entrepeneurs will trademark widely recognized strain names, and then either exploit, or even just "squat" on them.
EG, I run to the trademark office and register White Widow, Skunk, Haze, Northern Lights, "OG", "Diesel", "Kush", Panama Red, Acapulco Gold, etc. In fact, this WAS tried, but a Federal judge ruled that illegal cannabis strain names can't hold trademark. Should Federal legalization occur, I'd imagine a similar Judge would rule under existing precedent that names that are already in wide general use like all of the above, can't be trademarked.
Say the of breeders of skunk #1 or the breeder of NLS were able to trademark their strains.. where would we have been in the late 80's and early 90's since these were all the back bone of many a breeding project?
See above.
Trademarking the names would probably be a GOOD thing, since then you wouldn't have fifty generic "breeders" selling genetically unrelated bunk ceeds called "Skunk" or "Northern lights" as you now do.
I don't think the genetics in question would have been patentable, but bluntly, I'm not even remotely familiar with the case law in this area, so I can't say anything insightful here. What I can say is that I believe that in general patent protection makes better genetics MORE likely, not LESS likely, since it offers protection and support to the best breeders and offers them a stronger incentive to develop successful lines.