I appreciate the good thoughts, but I was in litigation with Pioneer Holding, not Drew Jones aka Mr Extractor, aka Connoisseur Concentrates.
Not to take the pressure off of Drew, as his record speaks for itself.
8 Likes
It appears Drew attempted to patent a CLS setup you came up with before him?
Then claimed he would rule the industry 
3 Likes
This is gold:
I think heâs a sociopath," Ellis says of Jones. âHeâll say and do anything without remorse and somehow justify it.â
Ellis says. âHeâs a scoundrel. Thereâs a lot of stuff out there. I have no problem with anybody using any of it. What I do have a problem with is somebody thinking they can patent it.â
2 Likes
Oh that! He never sued me, just blathering attacks on social media!
Our conflict actually occurred before his provisional patent, when he was attempting to poison the well for the rest of us by posting a video stating that Mr Extractor was state of the art and the rest of us were unsafe morons, while demonstrating egregiously unsafe practices.
âMr extractorâ discussion - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums
Drew got a provisional patent on a design using a borosilicate extraction chamber, which he and I discussed sometime after he took my class on assembling and running a Mk III or Lil Terp.
I told him I had designed such a unit, but wasnât able to get thicker than a 9mm wall borosilicate tube, which wouldnât meet ASME Section VIII for LPG.
I told him we even had a 6" sight glass tube coated with clear PTFE at Continental coatings in an attempt to further strengthen, but that it wasnât clear enough for our purposes, so we had abandon the idea.
I donât have a problem with Drew taking credit for his purdy non ASME certifiable creation, just poisoning the well and using a provisional patent to try and exhort our industry.
The latest of course was his selling Vitamin E Acetate and representing it as salubrious Dr Feelgoodâs mutherâs milk. I rest my case on how much remorse heâs shown.!
16 Likes
To Markâs defense, the structures werenât in Sci-Finder, and that gets some chemists excited. IP at a startup level is good for raising money, and oftentimes even savvy investors donât fully vet the IP or the person evaluating the patent telling the investor what they wanna hear, or maybe not being able to fully reach a conclusion, oftentimes because of poor citing of prior art and lack of background in general.
Granting of a patent is at the discretion of a patent examiner, and does not in any way indicate that it will hold up in court.
What irks me with this patent is that the reaction clearly forms a mixture, it uses the most obvious prior art. Without really having the expertise to evaluate claims of biological activity, I venture to say that the activities reported and the uses of 9(S/R)-HHCa are the only claims that will have a chance to survive patent litigation. And that would only happen if someone tried to monetize that claim.
As if the FDA would approve of a diastereomeric mixture?
Does this patent clear the bar of the having âreduced to practiceâ something that is non-obvious to a practitioner skilled in the art?
Take patents with a grain of salt, think of them as the result of a dog pissing on a fence post, expecting a treat, the investor to invest.
This case is pretty innocuous.
7 Likes
Even if they were, theyâd quickly be blown out of the water, once patents on the individual disastereomers were granted to other inventors.
5 Likes
Yeah no shit, itâs not novel or even well written or explored. Super lame to patent something ez and use that baby chemistry to float the rest of your reputation.
Also good luck to anyone trying to run hydrogenations with 10% loading of 10% Pd/CâŚjust throw economy to the wind and see how competitive your pricing is in a few monthsâŚthose conditions are completely unoptimized.
Does anyone do HHC consulting?
Omg can we just not⌠how about we donât?
5 Likes
I understand the risks. I am just trying to gauge if there are some alternative SOPs, like those mentioned above in this thread, that could be more manageable.
are you certain?
the tragedy linked above appears to have occurred on an HHC consult.
10 Likes
Yup, I know the risks. And thanks for sharing that link to the LA fire. Wow. I feel bad for the burn victims and families. That really sucks.
Yeah, it does.
Not something Iâd wish upon anyone.
I doubt we will know exactly what went sideways everâŚbut anyone thinking about performing or scaling this reaction needs to understand the magnitude of the risks involved.
12 Likes
Iâm good. I donât even want to support HHC to mass consumers if the risks truly outweigh the reward.
Itâs truly eye opening.
You gotta give me a big life insurance policy for that level of science.
8 Likes
Probably not. And honestly, if you need consulting you shouldnât be doing the chemistry. If youâre qualified to do the chemistry, you donât need a consultant.
The reason I wonât consult on it is liability, AND the fact that consulting on something that valuable requires you to under value new technology. One could make hundreds of thousands of dollars running hydrogenations, or tens of thousands consulting on it. It just doesnât make sense to give away the technology.
Edit: that being said, Iâve got kilos of HHC if you want em (;
11 Likes
An SOP doesnât make the chemist, thatâs for sure. That said, there are plenty of people out there that has the right attitude, err on the side of caution, have nice top of the line equipment, and are simply eager to do things right.
The problem, as I see it, is that all too often an SOP is seen as a Carte Blanche, lulling operators into a false sense of security, turning off their critical thinking (if it was even there in the first place).
Add to this a slew of inexperienced business owners who just sees the SOP as a way to placate regulators and could not care less about the inherent quality of the SOP. Just download it and hope it fits the equipment without any modifications.
The SOPs that I have seen in the âhemp industryâ as far as the chemistry is concerned is mostly pure garbage, but still regarded as highly coveted secrets, oftentimes lifted straight out of the patent literature without any regard whatsoever if the SOP actually infringes on someoneâs IP.
The idea that someone should be prevented from doing chemistry just because they arenât classically trained in the field is a dangerous one. It is not their lack of that training that makes them dangerous to themselves and others, that is mostly due to notions of invincibility and a cavalier attitude.
9 Likes
Itâs possible I am not as naive as you think. Though I understand your view given the number of clowns here.
I am frequently pressured by my employer, as the only professionally trained chemist with advanced degrees and years of industrial experience, to make some of these cutting edge products. Most of the chemistry employed isnât new. I did Pd on C reactions years ago in grad school⌠but I wont pretend to be an organic synthetic chemist (let alone at scale). It has been rather difficult explaining to non-chemists the safety and scalability issues presented with such processes. And the environmental conditions required⌠So, these replies have been actually helpful, frankly. As was the link to the horrible fire. It states my case well. I truly hope that people can learn from the recent incident. I say that for myself.
I literally had a conversation with a pseudo colleague out west a week ago about HHC. He said his connections make it all the time. Itâs easy⌠blah, blah, blah. He can sell it all. Same with THC-o. I just need to make it⌠so he can make his commission, of course.
So, I sent him the link to the horrible accident out west.
Does that make any sense?
6 Likes
As long as you stay away from transfer hydrogenation.
1 Like
I donât know what youâre getting at after reading that. Iâm not suggesting gatekeeping chemistry from untrained chemists. But Iâll triple down on saying you shouldnât be hydrogenating or messing with HF or organometallics if youâre not classically or highly trained, thatâs a no brainer.
5 Likes
Thatâs where people like you and me come in, I suppose.
1 Like