Jump to content

Kevin Sabet Was Right?


slipstar059

Recommended Posts

 

Misleading US Advertisement

-GW

Response

19 May 2005

 

If you are in the United States and are accessing this web page in response to a US advertisement funded by Common Sense for Drug Policy, please note that this advertisement is not endorsed by GW Pharmaceuticals. Indeed, GW disputes and rejects the contents of the advertisement.

 

If you are in the United States and are accessing this web page in response to a US advertisement funded by Common Sense for Drug Policy, please note that this advertisement is not endorsed by GW Pharmaceuticals. Indeed, GW disputes and rejects the contents of the advertisement.

GW believes that this advertisement deliberately attempts to obscure the clear distinction between Sativex® and crude herbal cannabis / marijuana. The advertisement ignores the critical role of our unique formulations, their delivery system and the rigorous requirements of the scientific method. Such statements, in our opinion, deliberately seek to create confusion, among members of the public and the medical profession, concerning the nature of Sativex® and the goals of the company's program.

We are very disappointed that groups such as CSDP seek to exploit Sativex® for their own ends. GW is a pharmaceutical company focused solely on producing a medicine that can meet modern medical standards and serves the needs of patients. We are aggrieved that participants in the marijuana policy debate seek to use our information in an inappropriate and unsupportable manner.

Q: What is GW's position on crude herbal cannabis?

A: GW has never endorsed or supported the idea of distributing or legalizing crude herbal cannabis for medical use. In both our publications and presentations, we have consistently maintained that crude herbal cannabis can never meet the regulatory standards of the FDA and of other countries around the world. We have also repeatedly stressed that these regulatory processes provide important protections for patients, and we believe that any cannabis-derived medicinal product must be subjected to, and satisfy, such rigorous scrutiny.

Q: Why does GW believe that Sativex® is not just "liquid marijuana"?

A: Sativex® is not "liquid marijuana." Sativex® is a pharmaceutical product standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of an appropriate alternative delivery system, which has been, and continues to be, tested in properly controlled preclinical and clinical studies. Crude herbal cannabis-often called "marijuana"-- in liquid or any other form, is none of those things.

Q: What impact should the approval of Sativex® in Canada have on the availability, for medical purposes, of crude herbal cannabis in the US and elsewhere?

A: The approval of Sativex® in Canada does not mean that any other product containing cannabis/marijuana should be made available as a prescription medicine in the US or elsewhere, unless and until it has gone through the same rigorous research, testing, and regulatory approval processes. Clearly, crude herbal cannabis or marijuana does not meet these criteria. We believe that other presentations of cannabis should not use Sativex® in an attempt to bypass standard processes for making legitimate medicines available.

Q: What type of cannabis-containing product should be made available to patients for medical use?

A: Only a scientifically-based cannabis-derived product, which meets the standards of modern pharmaceutical practice, and which has been approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies, would be suitable for distribution to patients as a prescription medicine.

Oi vey. Where is this all going to end? GW is attempting to become the Monsanto of Marijuana (with the blessings of the U.S. Patent Office) while the government is intent on denying that cannabis is a medicine. The only way this can end favorably for the consumer is full legalization/decriminalization where anyone can grow any amount wanted and patent their own strains.

Big money, of course, is totally against this. It is time for people to stand up and tell big money to phuck off!

Edited by amish4ganja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oi vey. Where is this all going to end? GW is attempting to become the Monsanto of Marijuana (with the blessings of the U.S. Patent Office) while the government is intent on denying that cannabis is a medicine. The only way this can end favorably for the consumer is full legalization/decriminalization where anyone can grow any amount wanted and patent their own strains.

Big money, of course, is totally against this. It is time for people to stand up and tell big money to phuck off!

Actually if you look at the stocks, the same people that invest in Monsanto are investing in GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ding ding ding!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

by the way....people have been "standing up and telling big money to phaq off" for decades. Maybe its time to try some other method of relaying our message?  I hate to do the same thing over and over and over, to no avail, while expecting a different result every time. Makes the belly feel good I guess, but accomplishes nothing, evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually if you look at the stocks, the same people that invest in Monsanto are investing in GW.

Good. Let them sink all their moolah into GW, allow unlimited/unfettered access to personal growing, and watch GW become 1/3 of its current value. This shiit is capital s Stupid. This harmless plant has been used by society for thousands of years and now big money wants us to believe that there is something new here? People really need to put on their thinking caps when it comes to cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gw grows high thc and high cbd plants, extracts from 2 different strains, then combines to get the 1:1 ratio.

 

they also have cbn cbg etc strains and are working to sell them.

high cbd and high thc plant extracts go into solution easily and quick with a little heat. More heat never

made any I saw fall out of solution with alcohol, dlimonene, nbutane, chlorophyll, hexane,, Alpha pinene, and more.

I wondered why theres is separated out of the vessel at all?

 

mine looks like honey colored oil before purged, not like bile and vomit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes anyone believe that once the gov caves on the medical value issue and wants to begin cashing in on their patents of extractions, plant genetics, methods of process, etc.....that they will not prosecute everyone they can find who is violating these patents? They rely today on Homeland Security to enforce those exact laws, and they are well equipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Under US law, a patent owner is entitled to the larger of either a reasonable royalty or lost profits that result from infringement of their patent. Reasonableness is determined by the standard practices of the particular industry most relevant to the invention. Lost profits are determined by a "but for" analysis. (e.g. "My client would have made X dollars in profit but for the infringement of his/her patent.")

 

 

 

If an infringer is found to have deliberately infringed a patent (i.e. "willful" infringement), then punitive damages can be assessed up to three times the actual damages. Legal fees can also be assessed"

 

Patent infringement may not be a crime, I stand corrected, but trademark infringement is. Both can include a jury, a judge, a court, a defendant, fines, and an injunction etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Under US law, a patent owner is entitled to the larger of either a reasonable royalty or lost profits that result from infringement of their patent. Reasonableness is determined by the standard practices of the particular industry most relevant to the invention. Lost profits are determined by a "but for" analysis. (e.g. "My client would have made X dollars in profit but for the infringement of his/her patent.")

 

 

 

If an infringer is found to have deliberately infringed a patent (i.e. "willful" infringement), then punitive damages can be assessed up to three times the actual damages. Legal fees can also be assessed"

 

Patent infringement may not be a crime, I stand corrected, but trademark infringement is. Both can include a jury, a judge, a court, a defendant, fines, and an injunction etc.

Prosecution is a criminal procedure. Patent infringement is a civil issue. What you quote is tort law and yes, court procedure applies in both.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patent infringement may not be a crime, I stand corrected, but trademark infringement is. Both can include a jury, a judge, a court, a defendant, fines, and an injunction etc.

The ACTA trade agreement requires that its parties add criminal penalties, including incarceration and fines, for copyright and trademark infringement, and obligated the parties to active police for infringement.

 

In 2009 a thousand plants were patented. When the OG Kush is sequenced, then patented, then trademarked it will be a crime to cultivate it, make seeds, sell produce, clone,  without the owners permission. Tomatoes at the store are patented and trademarked, often by Monsanto/affiliates. NO worries though, Monsanto has mastered the terminator gene in cannabis already, and are standing by waiting for GH investors to give more cash before they make their move. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 is a United States federal law that amended the federal criminal code to make it a federal offense to violate the Lanham Act by the intentional use of a counterfeit trademark or the unauthorized use of a counterfeit trademark. The act established penalties of up to five years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine ($1,000,000 fine for a corporation or other legal entity) for selling or attempting to sell counterfeit goods or services. It increased such penalties for a second or subsequent conviction under the Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_Counterfeiting_Act_of_1984

 

"The idea of criminal penalties for certain trademark violations is not new – indeed, Congress enacted criminal penalties as early as 1876, just a few years after it passed the very first federal trademark statute.3 But mark owners had to be content with civil remedies for most of the history of American trademark law – Congress would not again enact criminal trademark penalties for more than 100 years after the Supreme Court struck down the 1876 Act in the Trademark Cases.4 Thus, for all practical purposes, criminal enforcement is a modern development, and one that has received little scholarly attention. http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_075275.pdf

 

these articles claim that although not all trademark infringements are a criminal act, some are. what is the misunderstanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more? In the case of severe violations -- for example when a violator is using a trademark to sell counterfeit goods or blatantly violating trademark law -- courts may issue criminal and civil penalties. Civil penalties may include compensating the trademark holder for lost profits or paying the trademark holder all profits obtained by the infringement. At the discretion of the court, the damages awarded to trademark holders can be tripled. Finally, counterfeiting trademarked goods can carry a felony charge under the United States Anti-counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996.http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/penalty-violating-trademark-6012.html

 

When intellectual property infringement is classified as a crime, the federal government (or occasionally the state government in the case of trade secrets), will pursue the infringer who, if found guilty, may be sentenced to jail time.http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/intellectual-property/ip-crimes.htm

 

 

Trademark Infringement

 

 

Infringement is the act of violating a law or a right, and is most commonly related to intellectual property.

 

Punishment for infringement can be either civil or criminal.

 

Civil penalties for infringement include paying back damages to the copyright, patent or trademark owner.

 

 

 

Criminal penalties for infringement can result in prison time and hefty monetary fines.

 

The three most common types of infringement are copyright infringement, patent infringement and trademark infringement

http://www.elocallawyers.com/content/lawyers/trademark-infringement-408

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just cite a case, then we might all learn something? If there is anything real here, there will be a case. We have scuffled on similar topics when you use wikipedia in legal discussions.

 

It is also interesting that you have pivoted the discussion to trademark from patent infringement, so this discussion is just really for jollies, and does not pertain at all to the original assertion.

really zap? did you also miss this post "Patent infringement may not be a crime, I stand corrected, but trademark infringement is." ?

 

whats interesting is that when you responded to that post you also were saying that this too, "trademark infringement" is no a crime.

 

here are several legal articles showing that it can be a crime. Are those articles all wrong now?

 

How would I know how to search for a legal case, and be able to discern all of the details. I looked up other lawyer sites and .gov's is all, and they all say the same thing about trademark infringements. what gives?

 

 

you believe I have some personal stake in this matter, but I don't. I could give two chits if it patented or not, or infringed or not. But when you said it wasn't a crime I googled. I still believe it is a crime because I only found one person saying it is not with an internet, legal reps saying it is. sorry it miffed you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes anyone believe that once the gov caves on the medical value issue and wants to begin cashing in on their patents of extractions, plant genetics, methods of process, etc.....that they will not prosecute everyone they can find who is violating these patents? They rely today on Homeland Security to enforce those exact laws, and they are well equipped.

You cannot prosecute someone for violating a patent.

actually happened right here. I could have said persecute, instead of prosecute, but now we see it can be prosecuted according to law on the books. This has everything to do with patients eh? especially when their investment portfolios suppor the very companies that are doing the patenting, copywriting, and trademarking no?

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patents. Not patients. Are we talking past each other here? I said you can't be prosecuted for violating a patent.

that's right. then I said, I stand corrected recall?

then I said although no prosecution for patent infringement, there is for trademark infringement. then you said NO to that also.

 

 

 

no problem, just read your lighting fast post..

 

so , if I was a Monsanto giant, I would definitely trademark my new cannabis strains, as well as copywrite their names, and patent the procedures I use to make extracts, grow these plants etc. Maybe just so I could prosecute those who are infringing, and protect my investment, like they have done to most vegetables and fruit seeds sold tday. They sue farmers every day for planting their seeds without permission, all it takes is one dna sequence to identify the genetic uniqueness of their cultivar, and guilty! Its happening all around the world today.

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't market anything. I am retired now for almost 15 years.

 

I think it is quite relevant that in the future, as it is playing out right now, will include patented/copy written/trademarked cannabis plants. I am not naïve enough to believe this will not affect a cannabis seller, grower, breeder, and yes, even a cannabis infused product producer. Folks used to ignore the tomato patents too a while ago, and the patents on fruit trees too. Next comes super bees, and livestock are now patented. When they specialize (genetically) a plant or animal why in the world wouldn't they do it for profit right? You can bet GMO cannabis is at the patent office currently, otherwise any drug lab in the world would be producing the same cannabis sprays with different names, packages, gmo varieties.

I highly doubt discussing these important issues will somehow motivate Monsanto into taking actions so our posts are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might pertain to the issue at hand.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

 

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit and held that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent owner's permission.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that patent violations are a crime. Thanks zap for inspiring me to learn more about infringement law. I really wish I would have said persecution, instead of prosecution.  Paying court costs, fines, penalties, attorney fees feels like a prosecution I'm guessing, except for the possible incarceration.

 

Hey, Monsanto :butt2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...