InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 112677
Next 10
Followers 95
Posts 11595
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/27/2011

Re: MD-420 post# 76385

Tuesday, 08/23/2016 1:41:10 PM

Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:41:10 PM

Post# of 112677
There is nothing in the regulations in Nevada or anywhere else that prevents mCig or any other company from licensing a cultivator to produce and distribute their brand, Rollies, based on mCig's specifications. This would be no different than any other manufacturer outsourcing a product built to their specs. Under this model, or if they supplied the labor as an MME Agent, mCig would not have to own or buy any MJ.

As far as intellectual property is concerned, it would be impossible at this time for any company to patent or get intellectual property protection for any MJ plant or variety as long as MJ is federally illegal. However, they could be protected as a trade secret (e.g. the exact formula for making coca cola has never been released). Nevertheless your point about the cultivator having the intellectual property rights would be wrong anyway...

General Information About 35 U.S.C. 161 Plant Patents

Inventorship

Because there are two steps which constitute invention in plant applications, there may be more than one inventor. An inventor is any person who contributed to either step of invention. For example, if one person discovers a new and distinct plant and asexually reproduces the plant, such person would be a sole inventor. If one person discovered or selected a new and distinct plant, and a second person asexually reproduced the plant and ascertained that the clone(s) of the plant were identical to the original plant in every distinguishing characteristic, the second person would properly be considered a co-inventor. If either step is performed by a staff, every member of the staff who performed or contributed to the performance of either step could properly be considered a co-inventor. Thus, a plant patent may have a plurality of inventors. However, an inventor can direct that the step of asexual reproduction be performed by a custom propagation service or tissue culture enterprise and those performing the service would not be considered co-inventors.



as for your contention...

The business model is plain stupid.



Proprietary blends of different plant strains would be the easiest way for mCig to have unique trade secrets and set themselves apart from any competition. They could follow the Coca Cola business model and franchise cultivators to produce and distribute their product. There is nothing stupid about this business model. It works well for Coke and many other companies.

It does pose an interesting question though. How are they market testing the product? We may have just stumbled upon what's causing the delays. wink

Les