Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Less guns more weed.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ZombieHunter" data-source="post: 2027076" data-attributes="member: 5791"><p>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</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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*</p><p></p><p>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*.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ZombieHunter, post: 2027076, member: 5791"] 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*. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Less guns more weed.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
