Get ready to say good bye to this thread. They have removed my earlier thread about the introduction of the overly patented plant. Look for it. It's GONE.

@roseseek I see that. Who petitioned to have it removed, and why, I wonder? Did Star Roses complain and ask Houzz to remove it?

EMILY:

Why was it removed?

I dunno, but ....

That's crazy! Star Roses is the one who started this whole debate by commenting on that thread!

Did you know, if you had left your browser with an open window and that thread in it, it's STILL THERE? I have it, the whole thing. I can copy, paste and mail it. I can save it. It still EXISTS! LOL!

What happened to Freedom of Speech. No one said anything specifically rude to another poster. The thread was on topic. I think we should all complain. Why is Houzz taking their side when they never even post here.

Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around, money makes the world go around....Star is a "PRO" poster, hence they PAY for the privilege. None of us PAY to be here, instead, we are MONETIZED. The more posters Houzz possesses, the more beneficial it is for advertisers and "PRO" members to PAY to be featured on the site. When the "advertiser" complains, you dance and give them what they want or they don't PAY you. "Freedom of Speech"? Not on a site which either charges you to post, or SELLS you to the highest bidder and we all give our permission for it to happen by POSTING HERE. Complain? Do you want to be heard? PAY THEM more than the Pro poster.

And, probably start saying our "good byes" to one another before WE start getting "disappeared"....

Time to set up an automatic mailer with change email address to their support that'll only stop when a response is given and will gradually send increasing numbers of emails :) weeee!

yikes! As one aspect of my job, my team manages a community in another industry for a large global company and this is the main reason I do not allow sponsors. Plus regardless of who complained/the reasons for its removal, you cant just delete a thread like that, it's against the basics of "community 101"! What a lack of integrity.

Do you think that there is any likelihood that Star is hoping to discourage hobby breeders so as to force people to buy their products? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, maybe they are intentionally wanting to intimidate people like me, Mrs Everyday Housewife with a few roses who would like to raise some seedlings to enjoy, but if I am scared of possibly being sued for some pollen that a bee brought over from the neighbor garden, then I will not raise my own and instead pop down to Home Depot and buy theirs instead?

Money makes the world go around....

@joeywyomingzone4 ”Do you think that there is any likelihood that Star is hoping to discourage hobby breeders so as to force people to buy their products?”

No, I think this is all about monetizing a new product and making sure they have complete control of a future they’re visualizing.

What Paul said. No one cares if you or I raise seedlings and unless someone TOLD them they contained their precious gene, there would be no way for them or anyone else to know. Now, if you tried introducing it and it LOOKED as if it did or someone promoted it as containing those genes, THEN you may have an "issue" on your hands.

My guess was also that Star Roses, a paying PRO, requested the thread removed. Amazing how fast Houzz can react when they want to, and there is money involved. I wonder how long this thread will stay up?

I hope this ugly little rose , Petite Knock Out, becomes a financial disaster so their is no more money left in Star Roses‘s further development using its genes. And I hope Start Roses cares a small fraction about Knock Out landscape practices causing the RRD crises, as they do about protecting their precious gene.

EMILY- please give us an explanation as to why the previous thread was removed.

Ditto

Shame on STAR.

That gives me TWO reasons to be glad I don't buy their products.

This variety should be named something more desciptive of its true intentions than Petite Knock Out. How about: Greedy Little Knockout, Frankenrose, Petite Litigation, RRDelight.

I had just decided to give How-uzzless one more chance. After staying away for over a year, I see I was premature in returning, and totally justified in my boycott. In this, my last message EVER on this forum, I urge everyone to make their displeasure known over the removal of the PKO thread, and beg you to go to Star Rose's Fa(r)cebook page and down-vote their rating.

I'm done.

Hi there, I don't recall a thread like you described being removed. I'll see if I can find what's happening.

Thank you, Emily. The original link was here:

https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/5850444/are-you-ready-for-a-miniature-knock-out#n=59

Greedy Little Knockout

Petite Litigation

Ben: Do you do this professionally?

Link to old discussion now works - before, it yielded “nothing found”.

You should be able to access the original link again. Sorry about the confusion!

This♡

Petite Litigation

Star Roses and Plants seems to have disabled their reviews on Facebook... Or at least I can't see their reviews anymore. Maybe they blocked me because I left a negative review?

I can comment to their posts and I find no reviews. It appears they have been disabled. I don't know as I never saw them previously.

Fig, we have wonderful people here. Please don't go.

They were there this morning -- they had 4.3 stars out of five, and one could choose whether to recommend or not and then leave a comment. I guess this means that they DO care.

"Care"? Eh... Only a fool would permit irritated individuals to publicly trash them on their own site. We have a local super market which is REALLY bad. They disabled their review ability because they had a TON of complaints (MINE included). "Care"?

I suppose I mean they care about their reputation and are annoyed by people complaining.

I'm with Kim, they only care about the money. They're not going to let people post negative reviews because it will cut into their revenue stream. But we can boycott them as Jeri does. I've had other issues with their roses before and I prefer not to buy them if at all possible.

They disabled their reviews on Facebook??! That’s hilarious.

Since this discussion is intended to address Star Roses new “utility patent” on the dwarf knock out rose, I would like to add a few things.

I’ve read the patent application, and it’s an eye opener, to be sure. It is shockingly broad in scope, vague about the assets for which they seek protection, and there is no direct evidence that this plant qualifies for a Utility Patent. (Naturally occurring genes cannot be patented, only GMO genes qualify)

I want to provide you with a link to an entry made today on the Rose Hybridizers Forum, in which Don offers his evaluation of the patent application. I think this is publicly viewable, but if it is not, let me know:

RHA discussion about new patent.

It is my impression that this new patent is either faulty in it premise, or is sufficiently flawed that it cannot be enforced. I expect this is going to get a lot of attention in the months to come, and I think the outcome is going to be important: it may redefine how Rose breeding works in the decades to come.

The discussion is viewable. But I tried, then, to read the patent application, using the link Don provided. Message said the link “is either inaccurate, outdated, or the server has been instructed not to let you view it”.

Try this. http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220190380294%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20190380294&RS=DN/20190380294

"it may redefine how Rose breeding works in the decades to come"

In the USA, wouldnt be enforceable in the EU.

Thinking objectively here, is it not any more greedy than prohibiting asexual propagation of plant cultivars? If this helps protects the market value of their plant product, then I feel I'd be okay with it. I think they need to make money too and this would help to prevent others from taking a stake in their work. Yes it may be morally questionable but I also am thinking that it would be better for the rose industry as a whole. *These are my thoughts and it's not in concrete.*

Hi Dar,

No doubt Star agrees with you on this point. However, it would damage the rose industry as a whole (well, if you, like me, value diversity in the industry then you might agree, but if you don't then you might not see any problem with it). Vegetative propagation replicates a particular rose that a breeder produced through long work with many crosses (comprised of roses bred by other breeders, in a chain going back hundreds of years in some cases). Banning the use of the rose in sexual reproduction doesn't just protect that rose, it keeps other breeders from using its genetics in their own crosses. Rose breeding is a slow process -- a 20-year ban, if it is enforced on a large number of commercial roses, could have a real cooling effect on the small-time breeders who come up with many novel and beautiful rose varieties. Many of the popular varieties we enjoy now were hybridized by people who started out as small-time breeders. Even the famous David Austin started as an outsider, breeding roses that were deeply unpopular.

This might not seem like a big deal, but imagine, for a second, if Star had discovered a piece of genetic code that protected a rose from RRD. Imagine that they patented the rose they produced with this gene This would give them fully 20 years in which they could completely own the US market for roses. Who could compete with that? How many rose breeders would quit? How many other companies would go out of business? So you see, I don't think this is a good thing for the rose industry.

Dar, a 'regular' patent would provide the same protection you mention. It is for the rose they bred. This patent is not just for that rose, but any rose bred from it, including natural sports, all seed, and natural recombinant genes, etc.

"is it not any more greedy than prohibiting asexual propagation of plant cultivars?"

I think the word "greedy" isn't the right one - I think "selfish" is more appropriate here.

The fact that Star wants to control how their intellectual property is distributed, allowing them to maximize profit is not a problem, but they are attempting to control the future of rose breeding in realms beyond their purview. If they are in fact granted this patent, they will have all the protections of their rose they want, but none of the responsibilities: it is inevitable that the genes of this plant will escape into the rest of the genus, contaminating the gene pool irrevocably. And yet, it is unlikely they will be held responsible for the consequences.

For the next 20 years, hybridizers will worry whether anyone within two to six miles (the average distance bees forage from their hive) has planted this rose, creating an opportunity for these unwanted genes to infiltrate their breeding stock, a condition in which they can be sued for patent violation by Star/Conard-Pyle. That's right - a breeder can be sued for having patented genes in their breeding material, whether they put it there or the bees put it there! (There is a legal precedent for this, believe it or not: Percy Schmeiser in Canada)

So this isn't about patenting a single variety in order to maximize profit (perfectly reasonable), this is a grotesque overreach that will cast a shadow on rose breeding for at least twenty years.

@Dar Sunset Zone 18: please elaborate on the following statement:

"I also am thinking that it would be better for the rose industry as a whole."

How so?

Thank you.

Which Representatives/Senators do we need to send letters to about this? Heck with it, flood 'em all!

This sort of plant patent is, frankly, ridiculous. It reeks of the same sort of thinking that's led to people only being able to own a 'digital license' for music/movies/tv shows they buy and can't ever make a physical copy of so that the company can decide to delete the product from the customer's library at any time, or the bills proposed (in California, I think?) to prevent people from repairing their own electronic devices.

This isn't protecting intellectual property, it's lazy extortion by a bunch of companies who want to be able to stop creating products and rely forever on already existing products.

Does anyone know how to tell Kordes they might want to look into another US distributor?

I was thinking the same thing about Kordes. First, there's RRD in the Weeks' fields and now this with Star Roses.

ac91z6

Does anyone know how to tell Kordes they might want to look into another US distributor?

https://www.rosen.de/en/custom/index/sCustom/34

This was just shared on the Rose Hybridizers Association. Though it has nothing to do with Star nor their roses, it does point toward a scary trend.

This utility patent on a rose is a small part of a very large and very dangerous trend.

ETC Group News Release
Monday, January 10, 2005
www.etcgroup.org
Syngenta Claims Multi-Genome Monopoly

ETC Group's first Communiqué of 2005 focuses on Syngenta, the global gene giant that ranks first in agrochemicals and third in seeds. Syngenta has a patent pending in 115 countries that, if approved, would give it a multi-genome monopoly over at least 40 plant species.
...
According to a study prepared by Dr. Paul Oldham at Lancaster University (UK), the scope of this massive patent application is virtually limitless - extending to flowering plants in general, including those not yet classified by taxonomists. Syngenta's claims extend to key gene sequences of 23 major food crops annexed to the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. "If all its claims are approved," says Silvia Ribeiro in ETC's Mexico office, "FAO's seed treaty will be virtually useless."
https://www.etcgroup.org/content/syngen ... e-monopoly

In another assault on control of the food supply, there once was a U.S. patent on a Basmati-type rice that was so broad it included the ancestral strain. The Indian govt. had something to say about that, and the patent was rescinded.

There are quite a few books that were written quite a while ago, that should be required reading,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

and so on. They were at the time considered science fiction.

We need public funding in politics. Big companies ha e too much control right now. I also support free discussion ( not obscenity ) on the internet, not censorship. Special lab genetics that are let out to spread by wind and insects are the responsibility of the people that created them. All GMOs and lab created critters/ chemicals should be identified/ labeled for the public.

...this rose 'Zepeti'... will be sold in garden centres across Europe this Spring, as container plants grown from cuttings, via producers in Germany, Spain, Italy and France,... Standards will also be available, marketed as an alternative to standard Box plants..

They are not available bare root...

...Not to be sold in the UK though at present, as there is currently no production of the rose here...