Brainiachick
Active Member
[Mick: tread split and renamed from https://www.metabunk.org/showthread.php?p=38426#post38426 ]
I understand your concern about possibly spreading bunk and I'm afraid you may indeed have. I have extensive knowledge of scientific research and development, and some knowledge of patent law, so I will do my best to answer your questions. It is extremely difficult to claim patent over a naturally occurring product for which some use has been identified. One of the major difficulties here is the extent to which one can lay claims to this being an invention or discovery of any sort without isolation, purification or some sort of modification; or a specific discovery of a scientific nature. It is possible to obtain patent even when a general use of a product has been previously identified or established, if a discovery of its chemical or genetic structure or its specific metabolic pathway which was previously unknown is subsequently made. So one can't just run off into a field of cannabis - and shout "Hurray, I own this - it should be patented now - so only I can smoke this stuff and sell it". However if one does discover a new use for cannabis or a new chemical or scientific property or structure, this can be patented. The patent applies to the discovery and not to the natural product itself. So if Nestle can demonstrate a unique discovery pertaining to this flower in a way that it has not been discovered or registered before, they can apply for the patent and can potentially obtain such a patent. However, that does not infringe on the rights of others to grow, eat, sell or do whatever they want to do with this product. In my humble opinion, I think these petitions are not factually based and may have been blown out of proportion because it has largely been taken out of context to mean that Nestle wants to patent the plant rather than Nestle's specific scientific discovery. That is a long stretch. What would be key here is to examine the actual Nestle patent application to see exactly what they are applying for. I have not seen such a document online or anywhere else, so I cannot speculate, but from my previous knowledge and experience of working with a multinational giant competitor of Nestle, and having understudied and analysed Nestle as part of my Competitors Intelligence, I would be surprised if Nestle took such an unwise leap to try and patent the flower, rather than their discovery of something about the flower. I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Thomas, I am however curious to know why you are against all intellectual property - are you an inventor?
Hello I posted a link to a petition against Nestle because I'm against all intellectual property but now I fear because of my strong feelings on this position maybe I'm spread bunk news. So I Googled nestle and patent and a bunch of conspiracy sites came up. I'm I part of the problem. (Maybe this is the wrong section I don't really care if Fennel flower is a cure all or not.)
http://action.sumofus.org/a/nestle-nigella-sativa/5/2/?sub=fb
Certainly is saturation coverage at the moment.
The only slight bunk I could find is that it's not 'fennel' (Foeniculum vulgare) as we know it but nigella sativa, or black cumin. It is known as fennel flower though.
I don't know if it's even possible to claim a natural product as a patent unless you change it somehow. Or is it okay to patent a *use* of a naturally occuring product? Does that restrict others from using it?
Also, bastards.
I understand your concern about possibly spreading bunk and I'm afraid you may indeed have. I have extensive knowledge of scientific research and development, and some knowledge of patent law, so I will do my best to answer your questions. It is extremely difficult to claim patent over a naturally occurring product for which some use has been identified. One of the major difficulties here is the extent to which one can lay claims to this being an invention or discovery of any sort without isolation, purification or some sort of modification; or a specific discovery of a scientific nature. It is possible to obtain patent even when a general use of a product has been previously identified or established, if a discovery of its chemical or genetic structure or its specific metabolic pathway which was previously unknown is subsequently made. So one can't just run off into a field of cannabis - and shout "Hurray, I own this - it should be patented now - so only I can smoke this stuff and sell it". However if one does discover a new use for cannabis or a new chemical or scientific property or structure, this can be patented. The patent applies to the discovery and not to the natural product itself. So if Nestle can demonstrate a unique discovery pertaining to this flower in a way that it has not been discovered or registered before, they can apply for the patent and can potentially obtain such a patent. However, that does not infringe on the rights of others to grow, eat, sell or do whatever they want to do with this product. In my humble opinion, I think these petitions are not factually based and may have been blown out of proportion because it has largely been taken out of context to mean that Nestle wants to patent the plant rather than Nestle's specific scientific discovery. That is a long stretch. What would be key here is to examine the actual Nestle patent application to see exactly what they are applying for. I have not seen such a document online or anywhere else, so I cannot speculate, but from my previous knowledge and experience of working with a multinational giant competitor of Nestle, and having understudied and analysed Nestle as part of my Competitors Intelligence, I would be surprised if Nestle took such an unwise leap to try and patent the flower, rather than their discovery of something about the flower. I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Thomas, I am however curious to know why you are against all intellectual property - are you an inventor?
Last edited by a moderator: