I didn't find it "foul smelling" it's definitely unique. It's one of those strains that once you've smoked it, you could pick it out in a blind taste test.
What's to stop someone from renaming a known strain?
- Thread starter tstick
- Start date
Imo a names just a name till its legal everywhere and i think as it stands you would need to genetically modify cannabis to patent it at least in the uk anyway usa etc may be different and obviously that shits bad news the risk of genetic pollution alone should be enough to put folks off obviously it wont and its only a matter of time till that becomes more common i know in some parts of the world there already experimenting with it now
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
As has been said in a few posts here, the name does not matter. What matters is who grows it and how well, and what cuts they keep.
Everybody here has had both good and bad of the same strain, how can that be? You know how. Even the same grower has good and avg or bad runs. Diff grower, diff state, diff climates diff level of effort, diff starting points with genetics, diff everything
Not that long ago we were happy/ thrilled / freaking just to find killer bud. The belief that something recently illegal has a clear lineage is crazy to think in the first place.
Everybody here has had both good and bad of the same strain, how can that be? You know how. Even the same grower has good and avg or bad runs. Diff grower, diff state, diff climates diff level of effort, diff starting points with genetics, diff everything
Not that long ago we were happy/ thrilled / freaking just to find killer bud. The belief that something recently illegal has a clear lineage is crazy to think in the first place.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
What does someone named Morales have to do with this?
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
As somebody who's a newer grower, it kinda sucks that so many breeders are using false pretense to sell "hyped" seeds. Even though I only grow Auto's so far, at least give me a fucking break on the dishonest naming conventions so I can grow a strain that I want to try out. It's hard enough as a new grower to try to disseminate the various phenotypes among the same strains. Never mind the nonsense like the example that @PJ Diaz posted previously. This must seriously piss off the growers who have been doing this for decades. I'll assume many of the OG's are just using their own verified seeds that they cultivate themselves though.
Just my opinion. I'm a believer in honesty. Not BS.
Just my opinion. I'm a believer in honesty. Not BS.
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
I have seen many people think one kind is better than another when in fact both were the same except for a different name given!
Think what you have really liked and try growing that, it's the easiest way to find success imo. Latest is not greatest...your favorite is.
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
Perfectly stated.
People want new and best they honestly really have no idea wtf they are doing. Seems like people must want to be the trendy stoners with the latest strains so they aren't judged as squares for liking the classics??!
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
No doubt. That's pretty much what I've been doing with the Auto's I've been growing. So far my favorite is the Lamb's Breath Auto from Crop King, but I was unimpressed with the seed pop rate of my initial purchase there. There was also a Blue Mystic Auto I got from a different seed bank but instead of the initial 60 sativa/40 Indica that I tried from an online order of flower, same strain name that I ordered seeds for was something like 70 Indica/30 Sativa. Being new to the culture and how things work didn't help me at the time, but it could help if there was a standard naming system for this stuff. Especially for noobs.
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
Think of it like a tomato. It may be a different type, but for the most part it is just a tomato.
People expect too much from a seed in this hobby.
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
I'm fairly particular about my tomatoes as well though. Luckily, I have a family line that I seed and grow on a yearly basis now. I used to get the seedlings from Nona, but since getting into Cannabis I've been doing the seeding myself to keep the line going. I've learned more about horticulture since starting weed 5 years ago than I did the previous 25 years of gardening basic fruit and vegetables.
So thank you cannabis for all the things you've taught me, along with the great help in forums like this from folks like yourself!!
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
My favorite is the brandy wine, but heirlooms seem way more resistant to nature than those.
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
Ethos Purple Thai Auto Rbx
is hands down the best and most liked auto strain I have grown. I highly recommend it in fact it's the only auto I know of as good as a photo
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
Did you grow more than one, or just get lucky?
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
I grew 5. It comes in a 10 pack.
I was shocked, they were so similar they were like clones. All 5 grew well and finished strong.
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
I grew some crockett's tangie a few years back that were clone like.
Seems like its a rarity for the most part
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Legally there is "intellectual property". In reality (outside of legal land) , there is no intellectual property. Property is unique and tangible. A distinctly separate thing from other things, even things that look just like it, but aren't the one you are holding in your hand, which is a separate thing from the one somebody else is holding in their hand.
When a "breeder" makes seeds which are made from other seeds originating in places all over the world and claims they can "own" the result under some kind of "intellectual property" thing , they probably aren't sending payments back to the indigenous weed farmers in Colombia, Thailand, Afghanistan, India etc. where the stock they got originally came from.
Also, property for the most part is physical and tangible and unique. THAT plant of GG#4 in your closet is yours, THIS plant of GG#4 in somebody else closet is THEIR plant. One person owning their GG#4 does not limit the ownership interest another person has in their respective GG#4 plant. They are two separate things. To own one does not dispossess or lessen the ownership interest another person has in the one they own.
Intellectual property is a government fiction which has been legalized, it implies an idea can be owned. Except, two people CAN hold the same idea at the same time, while they can't simultaneously own (own in the sense of maintaining control over it) the same individual piece of physical property. For example you thinking the same thought as another person doesn't dispossess them of anything tangible, but if you try to own the same physical thing and you live in Connecticut, while the other person lives in Alabama, the unique physical thing has to reside in one place or the other.
As far as "owning" an idea...good luck with that in reality. It's unnatural, which is why I say it's a legal fiction.
Imagine if the first guy that used fire made a claim, "I own fire and the use of it". Then how would you fuckers even light a joint huh?
When a "breeder" makes seeds which are made from other seeds originating in places all over the world and claims they can "own" the result under some kind of "intellectual property" thing , they probably aren't sending payments back to the indigenous weed farmers in Colombia, Thailand, Afghanistan, India etc. where the stock they got originally came from.
Also, property for the most part is physical and tangible and unique. THAT plant of GG#4 in your closet is yours, THIS plant of GG#4 in somebody else closet is THEIR plant. One person owning their GG#4 does not limit the ownership interest another person has in their respective GG#4 plant. They are two separate things. To own one does not dispossess or lessen the ownership interest another person has in the one they own.
Intellectual property is a government fiction which has been legalized, it implies an idea can be owned. Except, two people CAN hold the same idea at the same time, while they can't simultaneously own (own in the sense of maintaining control over it) the same individual piece of physical property. For example you thinking the same thought as another person doesn't dispossess them of anything tangible, but if you try to own the same physical thing and you live in Connecticut, while the other person lives in Alabama, the unique physical thing has to reside in one place or the other.
As far as "owning" an idea...good luck with that in reality. It's unnatural, which is why I say it's a legal fiction.
Imagine if the first guy that used fire made a claim, "I own fire and the use of it". Then how would you fuckers even light a joint huh?
Last edited:
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
@Rob Roy I think you may be over generalizing the IP rights thing. A lot of that legal stuff is pretty dependant on specific types and uses of IP. Consider the Arts as one example. The specifics of individual rights and laws are further complicated by the State and country that you're talking about. I'll assume that you're talking USA laws. Anyhoot, this legal stuff is way beyond my understanding just by the sheer volume of the different scenarios and laws in different systems. But your post got me to do a quick search, so I thought I'd post a pretty interesting and fairly easy to understand (for a yokel like myself 
) article. This is more in regard to cannabis rights and laws here in Canada. It does touch on the USA patent rights of higher life forms (plants) compared to those in Canada, but is mainly focused on Canadian laws and breeding and naming protections.
https://www.bdplaw.com/insights/intellectual-property-in-cannabis-are-your-rights-protected/
) article. This is more in regard to cannabis rights and laws here in Canada. It does touch on the USA patent rights of higher life forms (plants) compared to those in Canada, but is mainly focused on Canadian laws and breeding and naming protections.https://www.bdplaw.com/insights/intellectual-property-in-cannabis-are-your-rights-protected/
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My point is intellectual property laws aren't designed to protect actual property, they are designed to prevent competition in many cases.@Rob Roy I think you may be over generalizing the IP rights thing. A lot of that legal stuff is pretty dependant on specific types and uses of IP. Consider the Arts as one example. The specifics of individual rights and laws are further complicated by the State and country that you're talking about. I'll assume that you're talking USA laws. Anyhoot, this legal stuff is way beyond my understanding just by the sheer volume of the different scenarios and laws in different systems. But your post got me to do a quick search, so I thought I'd post a pretty interesting and fairly easy to understand (for a yokel like myself
https://www.bdplaw.com/insights/intellectual-property-in-cannabis-are-your-rights-protected/
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?
