What's to stop someone from renaming a known strain?

ooof-da said:
Mt Dew used to be a kind of soda, like a flavor? It seems like there are so many “Mt Dew” colors and tastes that it isn’t fair to the old hillbilly green citric liquid from the 70’s…

www.snackhistory.com

Mountain Dew (History, Marketing, Flavors & Commercials) - Snack History

Mountain Dew is one of Pepsi’s most popular soft drinks that has added billions to Pepsi’s revenues. In Mountain Dew’s 80 year history, it has grown a large
www.snackhistory.com www.snackhistory.com
Click to expand...
Kinda of dis to moonshiners actually
 
Rob Roy said:
My point is intellectual property laws aren't designed to protect actual property, they are designed to prevent competition in many cases.

My other point was you would be harmed if I took your actual property, because I am disposessing you of something. We could hold the same idea and I could make a replica of the thing you own, but not take the thing you own, therefore I'm not dispossessing you of any actual property.

You may be right, I could be generalizing ip laws, but how would I have worked that wisecrack in about fire if I hadn't generalized? :D
Click to expand...

You don't consider IP actual property? What if I make a living off of my IP and somebody decides to make money off of the same idea? Is that preventing competition or is it, to your second point, dispossessing me of my specific form of income?
 
I'm surprised that more clone-only cultivars aren't patented. Then the breeders would be able to license their work to propagators. In some ways that sort of regulation sounds tyrannical, but I think in practice it would be much better for the grower, as they would be confident that the genetics they were purchasing were legit.
 
Dorian2 said:
You don't consider IP actual property? What if I make a living off of my IP and somebody decides to make money off of the same idea? Is that preventing competition or is it, to your second point, dispossessing me of my specific form of income?
Click to expand...

I don't know how I can justify defending the ownership of an idea I have, if you can hold the idea too.

I could claim to be the originator of the idea, but not the owner of it. Your holding the idea doesn't deprive me from holding the idea too. If you take something tangible from me, you have deprived me of something tangible, which CAN be owned. Ideas can be "owned" by as many people as hold that idea. Taking actual property is theft, holding the same idea is not theft.

What if I dig for tubers and am the first person to discover potatoes can be eaten? What if I get husky cave girls to pick lice out of my beard if I trade potatoes I dug up to pay them for their grooming services?

Then you watch where I get the potatoes the next day and see me digging them up. Should I tell you, you can't own potaotes YOU now dig up? You can't make consensual trades with YOUR potatoes to the same husky cave girls I was trading with?

What about the cave girls, can't they decide whose beard they wanna pick lice for potatoes from? I don't own them or their choices and can't(shouldn't) force them to only pick my lice or not venture out and find potatoes on their own.
 
Rob Roy said:
I don't know how I can justify defending the ownership of an idea I have, if you can hold the idea too.

I could claim to be the originator of the idea, but not the owner of it. Your holding the idea doesn't deprive me from holding the idea too. If you take something tangible from me, you have deprived me of something tangible, which CAN be owned. Ideas can be "owned" by as many people as hold that idea. Taking actual property is theft, holding the same idea is not theft.

What if I dig for tubers and am the first person to discover potatoes can be eaten? What if I get husky cave girls to pick lice out of my beard if I trade potatoes I dug up to pay them for their grooming services?

Then you watch where I get the potatoes the next day and see me digging them up. Should I tell you, you can't own potaotes YOU now dig up? You can't make consensual trades with YOUR potatoes to the same husky cave girls I was trading with?

What about the cave girls, can't they decide whose beard they wanna pick lice for potatoes from? I don't own them or their choices and can't(shouldn't) force them to only pick my lice or not venture out and find potatoes on their own.
Click to expand...

Well since we aren't in the Paleolithic era any longer, the article I posted does mention the USA allowing patents for higher lifeforms such as plants. I don't know any of the ins and outs on these laws, but society has developed certain processes and laws to take care of Cave dweller issues. I use Cave dwellers so I'm completely politically correct with the ladies. :bigjoint:
 
I think the point is sort of moot, weed is federally illegal so I don't think any of the various copyright/IP/etc. laws are going to matter. There are state based copyright laws, but good luck with that. It is not the same as a legal product like gorilla glue suing joesy.

At some juncture I would assume it would fall under whatever law Monsanto was using to sue farmers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
 
Dorian2 said:
the USA allowing patents for higher lifeforms such as plants
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of the USA "allowing" anything. Those fuckers are professional rights stealers, spy on people and then claim to be the sole source of who can own which ideas. No thanks. I don't need, seek or want approval from them.

If I have a particular breed of dog, which I "created" in my backyard by letting Rex hop on Fifi and then backcrossing and cubing the puppies
(with each other, not me actually back crossing with them in some kind of freaky dog/man thing...lol ) until they looked and behave a certain way with some kind of uniformity, I don't think I should tell other people they can't "create" dogs that are similar. Same thing with plants as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think "society" created the oxymoronic intellectual property laws either. I bet they were created by bought and paid for legislative people to protect a specific class of people from competition so they could use the force of government to try to own an idea, which is an impossible, but legal concept.

Would I take credit for creating C-99 by claiming some seeds I used from Bros. Grimm were my original idea ? No, I'd attribute the source, but I don't think I should be forced NOT to breed or pollen chuck with those seeds and I don't think I should pay Mr. Soul royalties either. Pretty sure he's not sending money orders out to some tribespeople in Colombia and wherever else the original seed stock for C-99 came from, nor should he.
 
Rob Roy said:
I'm not in favor of the USA "allowing" anything. Those fuckers are professional rights stealers, spy on people and then claim to be the sole source of who can own which ideas. No thanks. I don't need, seek or want approval from them.

If I have a particular breed of dog, which I "created" in my backyard by letting Rex hop on Fifi and then backcrossing and cubing the puppies
(with each other, not me actually back crossing with them in some kind of freaky dog/man thing...lol ) until they looked and behave a certain way with some kind of uniformity, I don't think I should tell other people they can't "create" dogs that are similar. Same thing with plants as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think "society" created the oxymoronic intellectual property laws either. I bet they were created by bought and paid for legislative people to protect a specific class of people from competition so they could use the force of government to try to own an idea, which is an impossible, but legal concept.

Would I take credit for creating C-99 by claiming some seeds I used from Bros. Grimm were my original idea ? No, I'd attribute the source, but I don't think I should be forced NOT to breed or pollen chuck with those seeds and I don't think I should pay Mr. Soul royalties either. Pretty sure he's not sending money orders out to some tribespeople in Colombia and wherever else the original seed stock for C-99 came from, nor should he.
Click to expand...
 
The only thing that will ever stop people renaming is money simple dont buy from dicks just in it for the cash who will just slap a name on anything also folk should actively name and shame those who do the problem is is half the average folk out there that only smoke sometimes probably dont care so much its only the folk that care and cannabis is a bigger part of there life that it bothers so much and its been going on so long and it dont seem like its gonna change any time soon.
 
Just wait. When cannabis is rescheduled, big pharma (and big farming) is gonna show us all exactly how you patent plants and create monopolies for the already rich. Renaming this strain or that strain or ripping someone's work is yesterday's concern.

And the governments logic will become idiotic. "It's only *safe* if this big company grows it, because they're soo good at following regulations blah blah..." So what? It isn't safe for me to grow my own tomatoes either? I need to pay some big mega greedy corpo because I can't possibly be smart enough to do things for myself? Oooooh I see, it's medicine now, so by all means big corpos come in and take it all away from us stupid plebs.

Rant over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Best thing I’ve ever seen for white powdery mildew
Replies
12
Views
699
Tmik
Tmik
P
HELP!! What Strain/Pheno Did I Actually Get From GHS Bubba Kush???
Replies
18
Views
1K
TheWholeTruth
T
MissinThe90’sStrains
Strains with the longest-lasting high ?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
conor c
conor c
LowRange
Organic Grow With a Mix Of Strains (Newb Alert)
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
McShnutz
McShnutz
Thatoneguyyouknow_
Long time grower returns to the life
Replies
4
Views
717
Thatoneguyyouknow_
Thatoneguyyouknow_
Back
Top