|
|
-
-
|
Per a post by Star Roses on Houzz - Garden Web Roses Forum, January 27, 2020:
"Star® Roses and Plants
The Petite Knock Out® Rose ('Meibenbino’ PP 30,811) will be the first rose covered by a U.S. Utility Patent, which protects the introducer by restricting any party from hybridizing with it. Whereas a standard plant patent restricts propagation, a utility patent restricts much more. Breeding, propagation, reproduction from or development of this variety is strictly prohibited with a utility patent. Because The Petite Knock Out® Rose, the first-ever, miniature Knock Out® Rose, is so unique, our company, Star® Roses and Plants, felt this plant was worthy of this level of protection. This particular variety has more versatility and flower power than any rose, making it extremely special to the world of flowers. We look forward to seeing what The Petite Knock Out® Rose brings to the market. Thank you for your cooperation and support, which we greatly appreciate."
|
REPLY
|
|
As I understand it, a utility patent can only be applied to a genetically modified organism. Would that mean the seedling resulting from the listed pedigree was modified, or is the pedigree given incorrect?
Unfortunately, I am guessing this is not a sterile cultivar, and bees *will* fertilize with it, making seedlings of roses in its vicinity potentially "illegal"?
|
REPLY
|
|
And I was under the impression that new roses shouldn't be given 5-word names.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hybridizers will likely give it a four-letter name. A utility patent has the theoretical risk of polluting a gene pool of rose seedlings, creating plants that are essentially illegal as *all* descendants would constitute patent infringements.
More to the point, most hybridizers feel humbled knowing they stand on the shoulders of the great hybridizers whose creations serve as the foundations for their own. Star has hereby taken a rose indebted to the work of prior hybridizers and put a full stop on anyone else being able to carry it to the next level.
That's definitely not in the spirit in which this community generally functions.
|
REPLY
|
|
Obvious cunning solution here: plant it next to another patented rose, wait for bees to do their thing, then let the two companies destroy each other in court arguing over who is to blame for the resulting seedlings.
|
REPLY
|
|
They'd sue the bee-keeper...
|
REPLY
|
|
This is a most worrying precedent. Does the patent specify exactly is so special and unique about this one particular cultivar which no other of literally tens of thousands of other rose varieties don't have?
I do hope it fails in the marketplace. No doubt Star hopes that the word 'Knockout' will sell it.
|
REPLY
|
|
You might find this thread on the Rose Hybridizers Association about it interesting, particularly Don's comment posted 1/29/2020 at 7:55 AM.
|
REPLY
|
|
You forgot the link. ;)
|
REPLY
|
|
Sorry. http://www.rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71018#p71018
|
REPLY
|
|
"This particular variety has more versatility and flower power than any rose..."
Pfft. Breeders say that about every new floribunda. :P
|
REPLY
|
|
It's called MARKETING!
That's what roses are really about.
I should know. I was a wholesale rep. lol
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#14 of 15 posted
23 FEB 21 by
 jmile
|
This is a rose???? I finally found out when a rose is NOT a rose. No thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#15 of 15 posted
23 FEB 21 by
....
-
-
|
SPEjual is Not Rolf Sievers Surina.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
28 APR 19 by
jedmar
|
Yes, it seems there is a second 'Surina' from Jan Spek. We will sort it out. Thank you for the heads up!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
It is a seedling of Stanwell Perpetual and blooms in the spring.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Andrea. Details added.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is the new Bluebell (MEIminderfer) 2014
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Andrea. I am sure Rosa Plant will move their photo. We have ‘Bluebell’ as MEImindefer, not MEIminderfer
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you, Andrea, I haven't noticed the year!
|
REPLY
|
|
