That's a pretty good point right there.
You do know that the patent you refer to is NULL AND VOID, and is ILLEGAL, the plant occurs in nature, cannot be patented. Unless they GENETICALLY modify the STRUCTURE of the plant to HAVE A KILL GENE (retarded) it is illegal and null.
Also that patent is supposedly held by the very same government making it illegal.... seriously people you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out...this is like me saying I have a patent on TREES and anyone who has or plans on growing one in the future better pay up....come on now...how dumb is our population?
It's not null and void, it's right here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507
Agree or disagree all you want, but I don't think you understand how the legal system works.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507
Agree or disagree all you want, but I don't think you understand how the legal system works.
I don't think you understand how commerce works, you cannot patent something that comes from seed.....naturally, it is ILLEGAL...jesus the schools really failed around here huh? And if its patented by them....why do I have friends who produce and sell it in Colorado and California....it is a way for them to RE-ENFORCE the ILLEGAL nature of them making it ILLEGAL in the first place
Because the patent holder has not yet filed an infringement suit, nor has anyone challenged the validity of the patent proactively. Those are the necessary steps to void the patent. Until then, it is valid despite your meta and nonsensical posts suggesting that somehow someone can will their way outside of laws they disagree with.
It's not necessary for me to interpret commerce in this context as the patent does exist. I'm just acknowledging that is active and on record. He courts would need challenged and to make the interpretation . Any appeals made to me carry no weight. I cannot usurp any law.
Good luck ZH and never stop posting.
It's not necessary for me to interpret commerce in this context as the patent does exist. I'm just acknowledging that is active and on record. He courts would need challenged and to make the interpretation . Any appeals made to me carry no weight. I cannot usurp any law.
Good luck ZH and never stop posting.
Again...they cant file an infringement suit, as their is nothing to infringe, a seed, which nature created...cannot be patented, its literally that simple.
Watch Food inc on the nature of Agricultural patents and how they apply to SEED STOCK, its probably the only material simpletons will understand.
Family has over 60 years in commercial nursery/ and agriculture, there is no validity to that patent, end of story. They believe that wording it as such "medical" that they are freaking clever, and they are, as it confuses 99.9% of the population.
Definition of Plant Seeds for those who have no clue:
When plants flower, they produce pollen on anthers, and eggs in an ovary. Wind, insects, water or another mechanical means transfers pollen to the female part of the plant.
When the pollen nucleus unites with the egg nucleus, fertilization is complete and the nucleus now has a full complement of DNA or chromosomes. The fertilized egg divides rapidly and multiple times to form the seed.
You cannot patent nature, they are trying to enforce a patent to stifle medical progress, and discourage competition, kudos you found them out.
I have seen said film and the comparison is not accurate. The film is about patenting an organism. The patent I cite is about the use of a substance as medicine. Again, the patent isn't invalid until a court says so. For better or worse. Problem is, the gov has the producers by the nuts because... Well who will fo rights to nullify the patent so they can sell marijuana illegally?
They're disregarding the patent through nullification but that does not mean the patent is not active and valid if someone pressed the issue.
They're disregarding the patent through nullification but that does not mean the patent is not active and valid if someone pressed the issue.
NO they hold the patent defensively, if the organism is MODIFIED it can be patented, thats where the comparison comes, YOU CANNOT PATENT A NATURALLY OCCURRING ORGANISM EVEN IF YOU SPECIFY THE USE! That is asinine to believe that is the case, if it were, I could patent CORN for the use of food....but it cannot be, until I GENETICALLY MODIFY ITS STRUCTURE, ALA KILL GENE OR PESTICIDES. Watch the movie again and you might catch the part where they say they were not issued patents on soybeans, until they GENETICALLY MODIFIED ITS DNA SUB-STRUCTURE....YOU CANT PATENT NATURE
The federal government again showing its reach exceeds its actual grasp, on top of the fact you cant just PATENT a naturally occurring substance, it was made illegal...by them....so they cannot produce it, its literally an OXYMORON of itself...I do not understand how that just goes *whoooooosh* right the eff over heads.
It is patented for medicinal use so you cannot produce it, plain and simple, on top of the already illegal law making said substance they "patented" illegal...ya makes sense *rolls eyes*
And yes, the patent is null and void, as it should never have been issued in the first place, they do not extend the same courtesy to corporations, and nature is self-replicating, you cannot patent that! The only patents in agriculture come when they REMOVED that function *retarded*.
Similar threads
