I just want to make sure I understand the patent laws for roses. I realise that one cannot make any asexual reproductions of patented plants but does that mean seedlings are ok?
Yes, seedlings are OK. The only exception would be if you purchased flowers of Applause, the genetically modified “blue rose” and used its pollen for breeding. If your seedling inherited the patented genes from Applause, you would be in voliation of the patent. But, using patented roses other than the GMO Applause for breeding is fine.
Kim,
Were they able to patent the genes because they ‘introduced’ genes into the plant? Is this a slippery slope?
Not sure about the slippery and slope but the technique is slick.
There was a case the other day heard by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a farmer in Indiana (Bowman) who went to the grain elevator and bought some soybean seeds that were fit only for cattle feed. He grew a crop using Round-Up to kill weeds (and incidentally any non-RR soybeans. Then he saved seed for future use. Monsanto says he is violating their patents because to use their seeds containing the gene for “Round-Up Ready” herbicide resistance, you have to pay a royalty and agree to not re-use seeds. He didn’t buy from them and didn’t sign an agreement, but there’s no doubt it is their technology in action. Based on the arguments heard at court he is likely to be found guilty.
So if some clever rose breeder introduces a gene for say B.S. resistance that is unique by means of some engineering, or finding in in a non-rose for use, they would likely be able to argue that they maintain pass-through rights to the technology even in seedlings bred from this. If the gene is a standard one found in rose species, they could probably patent the expression vector, which would almost certainly be needed to get good expression in the recipient. The patent would be on the whole construct, not just the product of the gene, but the whole scheme for controlling it.
Right now a plant patent is only on the plant in its present form. I believe that sports to a different color get a different patent. Can look this up at HMF. The very first patent was New Dawn which is a sport of Dr van Fleet. We don’t know the exact mutation (hint David Z) but it is probably in the ever-flowering gene (TFL-1 or RoKSN).
One of my siblings who is in everything organic first sent me an article talking about this case. This article was written on the premise of Monsato is evil. When I looked up this case and read it from a independent source I remember thinking there is no way this farmer wins this case. It seemed to me he wanted to save money so he went to the grain elevator and purposely bought seeds that he knew had a high chance of being gmo modified. For one thing this elevator is the same one he sold his previous crop of GMO seeds to. He wanted herbicide resistance without paying full price for it.
It is an interesting situation, however. What if you are a farmer whose neighbor plants GMO seed, and your crop is cross fertilized? You cannot risk using your own self-harvested seed. Even seed sellers need to assure their crops are isolated, and the patent rules ultimately would seem to imply that Monsanto will eventually end up with ridiculous influence over the industry.
Non GMO crops risk becoming prohibitively expensive due to liability protection.
…Not that this tangent has anything to do with Roses. Sorry.
Lafllin, the patent laws initially were intended to actually encourage hybridizing, and protecting your unique seedling (as opposed to an asexually propagated clone) so YES by all means. Have a little fun and engage in some sexual propagation! (err… of roses…)
That’s what we’re all about!
Phillip that would be the case I would love to see that case hit the supreme court. Almost every situation were the gmo polluted a neighboring field was settled out of court basically because very few people can afford to go up against Monsanto. All the rest of the cases I know about went to lower courts and was ruled in favor of Monsanto. The biggest problem with these cases is that any ruling that would go against a company like Monsanto is a ruling that would also go against numerous other business in other fields like pharmacological industrial for example. These industries put a lot of political pressure on these cases to go a certain way. It would be fairer if we lived in a world that things could be decided strictly on black and white issues with out outside influence. If it ever does go against monsanto or any of these other companies it will be a result I think of grass roots pressure which again is an outside influence which is not bias either. I have problems with GMOs but I also can see a purpose for them too. Most people either really hate them or do not give a dam; with only a few real proponents. But even though the majority hate them this is more because you can easily sway people with scare tactics.
[quote=ldavis]
Not sure about the slippery and slope but the technique is slick.
There was a case the other day heard by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a farmer in Indiana (Bowman) who went to the grain elevator and bought some soybean seeds that were fit only for cattle feed. He grew a crop using Round-Up to kill weeds (and incidentally any non-RR soybeans. Then he saved seed for future use. Monsanto says he is violating their patents because to use their seeds containing the gene for “Round-Up Ready” herbicide resistance, you have to pay a royalty and agree to not re-use seeds. He didn’t buy from them and didn’t sign an agreement, but there’s no doubt it is their technology in action. Based on the arguments heard at court he is likely to be found guilty…[/quote]
Here’s a good summary of the case.
I think it is more than ju$t political “pre$$ure”. Many former Monsanto executives and lawyers now grace the halls of government.
Kim, thanks for the answer and the heads up on the GMO plants. We talked about them in Botany class, the subject is very fascinating all the potential benefits GMO’s can provide such as Golden Rice, however, In my opinion the science is so new there hasn’t been enough time to study long term effects. (not to mention pattent laws)
And Phillip I am actually playing around with some seeds from self pollinated Peace and Josephs Coat I actually have no Idea as to what combinations work well together. This year I am planning on crossing (Water Colors x twilight zone) Twilight Zone and another unamed purple rose) as well as (Twilight Zone x Peace) I also have Tea Clipper that I would like to cross with one of my purples…I would love to hear if anyone has any opinions or suggestions
Years ago, I attended a scientific seminar held in San Diego attended by scientist from around the US where the impact of GMO genes was the primary topic. Actually, I was a “corporate spy” working for a PR firm that had Monsanto as a client.
As such, I attended one of the talks where the attorney who represented the Canadian farmer who was sued for growing GMO altered corn without buying the seed from Monsanto was discussing his defense of the farmer and Monsanto. This attorney was the farmer’s second mistake. He truly did not understand plants and how they are pollinated in nature, much less patent law. But that is beside the point. The farmer’s crop was over 25% GMO corn. There is no way that happened by accidental cross pollination in one growing season. At that time, Monsanto was only going after farmer’s who clearly were trying to profit from their product, not the guy who had “some” GMO corn.
I attended many of the meetings of the people protesting Monsanto and none of them were scientist and one quote I came away with still amazes me. One very vocal lady said that she didn’t know a thing about the topic, but just give her five minutes and some buzz words and she could disrupt any serious discussion with her protests.
I personally don’t agree with the ethics of Monsanto … they are buying up a lot of small seed companies and taking their products off of the market so that Monsanto has no competition from them, but, in my opinion, the Canadian corn case and the soybean case were deliberate attempts to circumvent current patent law.
Lyn
Lafllin,
The sport of Peace, Chicago Peace has given much better seedlings for me and since neither germinate very well I used the abundant pollen of CP on a lot of crosses last year. Joseph’s Coat seedlings grew ok but they were all white.
Neil
Of course, the “science” or “technology” of direct gene transfer itself is completely natural–it occurs with some obvious examples like viruses and bacteria introducing gene sequences into their hosts for their own benefit, all of which has gone on for countless eons. One cannot truly be “anti-GMO” without being anti-nature. We humans are merely emulating and taking advantage of a process that already happens in nature by transferring genes that we select ourselves, and by coming up with more controllable ways to complete the transfer. In fact, the only thing that is ever really questionable is the nature of the individual traits we are introducing, not the science itself; neither should the mere fact that a given organism may have been purposefully genetically modified be of any consequence to anyone. As a process, it should be subject to no more or less rational scrutiny than anything else humans do that has certain serious risks but also great rewards. Because of the existence of a scientifically objective risk of misapplication, there is a valuable role for proportionate and science-based legal regulation, monitoring, intervention and even criminal prosecution in order to help ensure that harm is not done. Belief against anything less than this level of risk amounts to little more than common superstition.
The one good thing about gene patenting is that it is only valid for a limited period of time, just like plant patents, after which time the gene should pass into the public domain and never be patentable again. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are or will someday be ways to skirt around this limitation, however. That could be something similar to the use of trademarks in concert with unpronounceable cultivar names to effectively circumvent the legal length of plant patents, or something not yet realized.
Stefan
They certainly circumvented some legalities in Philadelphia when young women where given vaccines. Just too sick to post a link.
" There are two modes of action phages operate with, one is the active assault, and one is a dormant mode. The active assault type of phage, called a lytic phage would be used for immediate personality modification of individuals, and the lysogenic type, which simply invades and makes changes to DNA while leaving whatever it is attacking alive, would be used for genetic modification of people, modifications that would span generations and be permanent."
Neil
[quote=Neil]
They certainly circumvented some legalities in Philadelphia when young women where given vaccines. Just too sick to post a link.
" There are two modes of action phages operate with, one is the active assault, and one is a dormant mode. The active assault type of phage, called a lytic phage would be used for immediate personality modification of individuals, and the lysogenic type, which simply invades and makes changes to DNA while leaving whatever it is attacking alive, would be used for genetic modification of people, modifications that would span generations and be permanent."
Neil[/quote]
** What does this have to do with roses? Are we dealing with personality modification in roses? Is this method patentable?
** Who are “They”?
** Whose judgements are those?
You should post a link if you think this is important to those on this forum.
Oh give me a break. Didn’t you read the post above mine.
Neil
Thanks Neil, I actually prefer Chicago Peace, it’s just that I found a Peace rose in a negleted garden when I was a kid and was captivated by it. So I was excited to purchase it when I found the bare root plant a few days ago.
From what I understand pink is the the most likely color achieved. Is white pretty common as well? I have always wanted a really nice white climbing rose or grandflora(something like New Dawn) with large loose petals double blooms and strong fragrance and of course bs resistance. I live in the Pacific Northwest so the climates are cooler and well wet…
Lafllin,
So far I have not seen another rose open up the way the flowers do on Peace. Others may be the same dia. but somehow not as big looking. The seedlings last year from Peace where mostly white and double, one had some some color and a lot of pollen so it was crossed with Strike It Rich. On the other hand Chicago Peace gave a full white seedling.
Neil, from the Pacific Northwest
Thanks Neil, sounds like a interesting cross. Are you aiming for an orangy peach color? As you said Peace seem’s to have a pretty original shape only found elsewhere in a smaller form. Looks like Strike it Rich is one of the roses holding a similar shape.
So you are also from the northwest 
If you don’t mind telling me, I am curious, what kind of roses have you had the most success with? Also what kinds of roses are you interested in. I raised seedlings many years ago (from Don Juan x Josphe’s coat ) but it’s only recently that I have a bit of room to attemps some hybridizing of my own. I am intrested in any opinions or tips on pretty much any subject dealing with roses.
Lafllin,
On the mentioned cross the aim was for a large flower, vigor and clean. I’m still mostly just noting the traits and what they pass on, also which are the good breeders.The most success has been with HT’s because that was what I had and liked (37 roses) and in the past few years am now up to 123 of named roses. That is not many by most standards but enough to keep me busy and I only used little more than a handfull of different pollen’s. Now my interests are changing since starting to breed.
Don Juan here is full of rust (thanks to a neighbors Love & Peace) and has not done well for seedlings, but it was pointed out last year that fully half the bush is a sport and had a lot of hips, so I’ll see how well they do.
By the way, even though I like L&P I don’t want the plant because of the rust, but I have a lot of seed from it.
Neil