'The Petite Knock Out Rose' reviews and comments

	Description		Photos		Lineage		Awards		References		Member Ratings		Member Comments		Member Journals		Gardens		Buy From

'The Petite Knock Out Rose' Reviews & Comments

My HMF:

☐ POST COMMENT

HelpMeFind's future is in your hands - Please do not take this unique resource for granted.

Your support of HelpMeFind is urgently needed. HelpMeFind, like all websites, needs funding to survive. We have set a premium-membership yearly subscription amount as low as possible to make user-community funding viable.

We are grateful to the many members who have signed up so far, but the number of premium-membership members remains too small for us to sustain the current support and development level. If you value HelpMeFind and want to see it continue we need your support too.

Yearly membership is only $2.00 per month and adds a host of additional features, and numerous planned enhancements, to take full advantage of the power and convenience of HelpMeFind. Click here to start your premium membership..

We of course also welcome donations of any amount. Click here to make a donation. Donations of $24 or more receive a thank-you gift of a 1-year premium membership.

As far as we have come, we feel HelpMeFind is still in its infancy. With your support we have so much more to accomplish.

Discussion id : 168-443 most recent 25 SEP SHOW ALL

Initial post 7 SEP by HMF supporting member

Charles Quest-Ritson

Reply #1 of 2 posted 7 SEP by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Reply #2 of 2 posted 8 SEP by HMF supporting member

Charles Quest-Ritson

Reply #3 of 2 posted 25 SEP by HMF supporting member

StefanDC

For some reason, querying "Queen's Jubilee" returns only the 1948 rose, while querying "Queens Jubilee" returns both the 1948 and 2012 roses. I have known for some time that apostrophes can be problematic in HelpMeFind searches and that omitting them seems to return better search results, but knowing this (or fixing the underlying problem, if possible) might help many other users.	REPLY

Discussion id : 131-021 most recent 20 MAY 22 SHOW ALL

Initial post 5 JAN 22 by HMF supporting member

Michael Garhart

The utility application originally had 14 actionable claims in it. Yes, 14. Gluttony in a single application. The USPTO had argued against many of these claims. It is now at 9 of its 14 original claims, some of which would be covered in a basic plant patent.

They tried to abuse the system imo, and the system was not having it. The entire saga is on USPTO for anyone to read, but I do warn any of you that it is a very long and winding series of exchanges over several years.

Sorry, Meilland, you are not Monsanto. You dont have that kind of economic clout to push your weight around in society with, lol.

I have to wonder if Home Depot and Lowe's know they carry a product most of their customers would not agree with the ethics over.

Reply #1 of 2 posted 20 MAY 22 by HMF supporting member

Plazbo

It's kind of funny they went to the effort as the plant is now being sold in Australia zepeti.com.au pbr search shows it was applied for back in 2020 pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr_db/plant_detail.cfm?AID=39071549 utility patent doesn't really have an equivalent here.	REPLY

Reply #2 of 2 posted 20 MAY 22 by HMF supporting member

Michael Garhart

Even more funny that Pink Sunblaze (2022) is possibly a sister seedling of it. How does that work?

Utility patents were never intended for roses. They are intended for food and ornamental crops produced through generations of selective selfing techniques where they are nearly pure strains. Roses, on the other hand, are highly intolerant of selfing at complex levels. Especially at the generations (10-12) utility patents were intended for. This is for plants like wheat, ornamental annuals, and so on.

Discussion id : 119-976 most recent 23 FEB 21 SHOW ALL

Initial post 27 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Kim Rupert

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 #1 of 15 posted 27 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Philip_ATX

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

Reply #2 of 15 posted 27 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Margaret Furness

Reply #3 of 15 posted 28 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Philip_ATX

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 #4 of 15 posted 28 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Robert Neil Rippetoe

Reply #10 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Give me caffeine

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

Reply #11 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Margaret Furness

Reply #13 of 15 posted 19 FEB 20 by HMF supporting member

Andrea Braun

Reply #5 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Nastarana

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

Reply #6 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Kim Rupert

Reply #7 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Give me caffeine

Reply #12 of 15 posted 30 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Kim Rupert

Reply #8 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Give me caffeine

Reply #9 of 15 posted 29 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

Robert Neil Rippetoe

Reply #14 of 15 posted 23 FEB 21 by HMF supporting member

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 ....

..	REPLY

Discussion id : 122-477 most recent 6 JUL 20 HIDE POSTS

Initial post 6 JUL 20 by HMF supporting member

Michael Garhart

All hail our oligarch overlords and the needless utility patent on ornamental plants.	REPLY