sarah jones as a parent

Plant Patents
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21

I do fully share Robert’s concern.

That a found rose is named provisionally and preserved is OK. Totally OK. That is limited non commercial or marginally so distribution

That it is named and sold with a marketing approach is quite criticable. That the “new” name use could be restricted or protected should be forbiden. At least it is totally unethical.

If the breeder is not financialy spoiled he is deprived of due recognition. Alive or not.

There is totally unlegitimate appropriation.

In Europe such “new” roses are grown for a few years and experts examined. If the “new” rose is known to be found it is not protectable.

22

If we don’t protect ourselves no one will.

If one of these guys wants to hybridize his own rose, (on his own time) and name it for his Grandmother, whoever or whatever he wants to, I’m all for it.

23

Pierre and Robert you make very good points. I would be very unhappy if one of mine was being marketed as a ‘found’ rose.

Speaking of ‘found’ roses, does anyone know if ‘Mr. Nash’ was ever identified? The last I saw ‘Doubloons’ was a leading contender.

24

I believe that I’ve recently read that ‘Mr. Nash’ has been identified as ‘Doubloons’.

In relation to this issue of marketing “found” roses, some talk–

I don’t believe that anyone is going to be losing significant royalties or personal recognition any time soon through the marketing of found roses. If a rose is so far out of the public awareness that relatively knowledgeable rosarians can’t identify it, it is probably out of patent. As noted by others in this thread, found roses are brought before the public eye and thus, sooner or later, are identified (or not). I don’t know of anyone who has become wealthy selling found roses, and I surely can’t imagine that anyone who finds such a rose will be gloating over the achievement and/or the fame that might go with it.

Quick–give me the name of the person who found “Katy Road Pink.” If you know, you’re one of very few. I don’t know the person’s name, so don’t ask me. So much for fame, no?

Most people who find an unidentified rose are more interested in discovering the name of the rose than in getting rich by marketing the rose.

It seems that there’s a bit of mythology about “found” roses–that they have somehow survived untended and must be super-roses with excellent disease resistance, etc. In relation to this, probably location is important. We all know of varieties that are disease-free in some climates or specific locations–but spend most of the year naked in other locales. The Earth-Kind testing program, although of some value, surely does not certify that a rose is bullet-proof. I’ve grown ‘Belinda’s Dream’ here in West Virginia–and it gets as much blackspot as the average HT if it’s not sprayed. Yes, the leaves do drop. ‘The Fairy’, on the other hand, gets lots of blackspot too–but holds on to its leaves better and blooms more.

In relation to “Sarah Jones*” [*or Johnson] and “Nacogdoches” it would be interesting to know whether anyone has tested these for rose mosaic virus. The presence of that might be taken to indicate a commercial origin before nurseries began to clean up their act. The flower of “Nacogdoches” pictured on the Chamblee’s web site reminds me a lot of ‘Oregold’ but I’d have to see the leaves and prickles and a lot of other things (and smell the blossom) before I’d say it is 'Oregold." Maybe it’s ‘Sunblest’ or some other old yellow, or perhaps a climbing sport of such a rose.

The sheer number of rose varieties available makes it difficult, even for someone who works with them regularly, to recognize all the varieties.

Back in the early 1990’s, I found a rose, sort of. That is, I bought a cut rose for my daughter’s birthday, and after the petals fell, I left the stem in the water. It rooted, and I grew a plant. The flower was pretty small and a fiery red-orange, and the petals lasted a long time. I called it “Torchy,” and circulated it to others to try to find a name. I was pretty sure that it was a commercial variety, probably well known because it seemed very good, but a knowledgeable rosarian from a family of rosarians was unable to identify it a mere 17 years after it was an AARS winner in 1977. The name? Korp (‘Prominent’).

‘Prominent’ is a really distinctive rose. There aren’t many like it What about one of the many red roses? I gave a talk to a local rose society 8 or 9 years ago. Just as an experiment, I took along a typical bloom from ‘Scarlet Knight’ (AARS 1968) because I’d been using it as a seed parent. Do you think that any of the several Consulting Rosarians and certified judges at the meeting could identify it? If you think so, think again.

Maybe sometime in the near future all roses will be genetically “fingerprinted” at the time they are put on the market. Each year, advances in technology improve the chances that this will happen. It may take some of the fun out of identifying found roses, but it will probably eliminate a lot of problems too. Until then, let’s cut a bit of slack to those who find roses and don’t know what they are. If you were in that person’s shoes, what would you do after trying to get the rose identified?

Peter

25

Yes, ‘Mr. Nash’ is ‘Doubloons.’ I had both in my garden for a while, and they were identical. John Starnes is comfortable with that ID.

Unfortunately, the rose growing public is extremely resistant to accepting any identification for their rose other than what’s written on the label. That’s the damage done by this marketing of “Sarah Jones.” Witness the mess with ‘Nicole.’ Even after hearing about the mixup at Edmunds with ‘Hannah Gordon,’ rose growers are sure that their plant is the real thing because that’s what the label says.

As a smalltime rose rustler, I share Robert and Pierre’s concern. I recently bought “The Jefferson Rose” from a small own root nursery in the south, only to find a short time later that it was Ralph Moore’s ‘Softee.’ I immediately notified the nursery, but it has not changed its marketing. The same nursery marketed a found “Tea,” as “Lover’s Delite,” which is actually the David Austin rose ‘Fisherman’s Friend.’ I notified the nursery of that identification, but the marketing did not stop. ‘Lavender Dream’ was marketed as ‘Belinda.’

Rose identification is time consuming and frustrating but far from impossible. The first step is that someone has to try. The ownership of the home of the retired school teacher in Nacogdoches needs to be dated. The rose needs to be distributed and widely grown by knowledgeable collectors. It should also be compared to others like it in large labeled collections by someone with “an eye.” That will no doubt happen through this marketing of “Sarah Jones,” but IMO that should happen before marketing with a modern rose.

It’s little different from a nursery deciding it doesn’t like the registered name of your rose and simply remarketing it as something else.

26

I re read the article and it seems they think that the present rose Grandma’s yellow(Nacogdoches) is a mutation(sport?) because there were 6 plants put out and 4 were not disease resistant at all and 2 were very disease resistant. Now which are the mutations the 4 or the 2? They can only compare to the original plant and besides I have never heard of a mutation which concerns disease resistance and nothing else. But maybe there is. If this is a mutation then this Grandma’s Yellow is a sport. The whole thing about the mutation does not make sense or they did not report it correctly. Fred you know more about this so maybe you could find out the real story about the mutations. I would sure like to know. Thanks.

Patrick

27

If “Grandma’s Yellow” is a sport, and they can prove it’s unique, the whole argument is out the window. They have every right to do with it as they please.

Peter while I appreciate your opinion and argument, ‘Prominent’ was still under patent in the early 1990s, and whether you knew it or not unauthorized propagation was illegal at that time.

Breeder rights are a huge topic and one that needs to be revisited and enforced, otherwise we are all just spinning our wheels and getting no where.

I’m not talking about unknowingly sharing patented rose cuttings with friends.

In the case of “Grandma’s Yellow” they are already tissue culturing it for mass production.

Substantiated evidence needs to be provided as to the rose’s origins. Trials need to be made to make an effort at correct identification and a list provided of eliminated and potential candidates.

As a university they have the means and a responsibility to carry through and properly document their findings and make them public.

I’d love to find out I’m wrong on this and that conscientious efforts are being made, but as Cass has pointed out, there is precedent. It’s sad this type of thing can occur within the lifetime of the breeder.

We need to nip unauthorized propagation in the bud.

28

I actually looked at it from the sport angle. For example, a lot of the foetida HT’s from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s sported yellows. Signora is a single example(Golden Signora), but there are many. Sports get lost so easily because no one is interested in “sport #1,837,972”.

The foliage shape seems unique on this rose. It looks very lance-like for an HT, which isnt always common. It looks like a nice rose tho…I’d grow it if it didnt blackspot here…but I have no way to judge if it is BS prone or not LOL.

29

Oh, so far out of my many books, it reminds me of Golden State (from Meidiland in the 30s) but I doubt it is that.

30

As for re-propogation of roses…

I think all nurseries ought to be weary of propogating roses that has the obvious stamp of modernity to them: bright colors and blends such as yellow and vermillian… even mauve and lavenders.

Floribunda or hybrid tea habbit…

Scents that are within the fruity range of spectrum…

But obviously older roses… we certainly ought to look for them and propogate them and rediscover their older names.

Now…

I would like to add another name as a canidate: Holtermann’s Gold.

It is supposedly disease resistant AND doesn’t fade.

31

Fascinating thread here, and it is very interesting to see such a diversity of opinions amongst amateur breeders on the fine lines between piracy and discovery.

Frankly, I think someone should contact poor Fred and thank him for starting an interesting conversation. I understand the passion in folks’ opinions, and sometimes online the tone of conversation may be misconstrued, but I hope Fred will see this for the healthy, friendly, albeit spirited conversation that it is.

Personally, I must confess that I have always been uncomfortable with the entire concept of “rose-rustling”. I can’t help think that anyone cutting, digging, or otherwise removing plant material from another’s property is essentially stealing anyway. (Yet there is a need to preserve seemingly endangered plants, no?) And how slowly are found roses’ real names acknowledged after growers identify them? As I recall, Katy Road’s real ID wasn’t acknowledged by the sellers until after the patent expired on Carefree Beauty. This may have been inertia rather than deceit – I did see the rose for sale as Katy Road Pk still in TX this summer – but it does raise an eyebrow…

So what guidelines/rules would one use to preserve and seminate valuable finds while protecting the rights/names of breeders? Or is that for the patent lawyers to duke out?

32

Well Phil…

It just depends on where you’re at and what’s the situation. Lots of these roses come from cemetaries and often they’re “abandoned”-- rustling from there shouldn’t be that terrible than say, for example, a rose that grows in someone’s front yard.

It’s situational… however, if there’s someone there, then it’s best to ask. I got R. moschata abysinicca in my garden by asking a landscapper who was cutting the roses at the quad. Just waved at me and said, “take as many you want.” Got about 12 cuttings, but only one survivor. (Thank god… it’s HUGE right now-- enough to root some more.)

And perhaps I’m the only person who has that rose right now, and it’s good to know because what will happen to the original abysinnica? It’s easly over 60 years old I am thinking. (Father Schoener died in 1941-- and it’s obvious that he planted it at SCU before that time when he was alive…)

But yes,

I think all rose rustlers ought to be weary if a rose has a mark of modernity to them… Collect them on your concious, and share them for the sake of re-identification. But to sell them… more thought and caution ought to be used.

33

The topic or rose rustling and piracy hits home with me right now for a few different reasons which is why I feel so passionately about it.

I am part of a group here in CA, who’s mission it is to preserve and collect roses found growing abandoned in cemeteries and home sites and the like.

The roses collected are assigned study names and they are distributed within the group and occasionally offered for sale by a few specialty growers in hopes a true identification can be made.

This is in keeping with the original spirit of the rose rustling movement and I support it fully.

Sometimes identification is made right away but if the found clone of the old garden rose is found to be superior for some reason, (say, free of virus), it is preserved and promoted as a superior clone.

This is a good way to weed out older, diseased and less vigorous and inferior clones of old garden roses.

The group I belong to is very careful to study and document these found clones before jumping to any conclusions.

Sorting out true identities can take decades and in some cases the original name may never be known but they don’t give up, nor do they assume they have exclusive rights to them!

This is part of the reason the popular variety grown as ‘Sombreuil’ was recently found to be incorrectly labeled and a correction was instituted.

It is much to the credit of ARS for recognizing the problem and taking action to make it right.

What we have going on in the case of “Grandma’s Yellow” is entirely different because we have an unidentified cultivar that is most likely modern and we have potential for commercial exploitation.

It’s plain they plan to go head to head against the best disease resistant yellow roses being distributed on the market today and they have the credence of a university that can promote the variety as “Yellow Rose of Texas”. They need to make clear they have the right to do so.

In my opinion the burden of proof falls to the university that they have exhausted all means of identification. They should make their efforts current and ongoing public. They should be prepared to give it the correct name, credit to the hybridizer and financial remuneration if warranted.

Otherwise they are teaching students that they can exploit any rose that isn’t expressly protected. They are teaching piracy and unethical behavior.

It is becoming more and more expensive to patent rose cultivars. It is economically prohibitive for most of us.

As I’ve said before, roses are about marketing.

If one of us works thirty years on a great yellow rose and we don’t have the means to promote (in this case a university) and protect it, we might as well hand it over to the first entity that has the means to exploit it. There will be no history we ever worked on it and it will be assigned to whoever grabs it up and commercializes it.

If we don’t take action to prevent these types of activities and to bring them to the attention of others we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Many of us are working on yellows right now including myself and many of you know how difficult it is to produce a good yellow.

If I can’t have any assurance my work isn’t going to snatched away the moment I’m dead and gone, our worse in my lifetime, then I see no point to continue hybridizing roses.

It’s about as simple as that.

34

The situation gets worse if one can’t afford to patent a plant.

35

It’s one thing to get a patent and quite another thing to police and protect that patent.

I worked for a company here in California that had a patent on popular Rahiolepis cultivar.

It was very hard to police illicit propagation because one has to prove loss of income and damages.

I consider our problem very similar to the one present in the music industry. Royalties are supposed to be paid every time a song is reproduced.

In reality we know it’s easy to make copies of recordings at home, just as it’s easy to make exact copies of roses.

Record companies aren’t going to prosecute for copyright infringement by the public just as patent owners aren’t going to prosecute small violaters.

Record companies have much more money and clout than nursery companies do and yet the problem continues. We have to rely on the ethical behavior of growers to do the right thing.

It’s a tough thing to enforce breeder rights when everybody isn’t playing by the same rules.

36

You make some very valid points Robert and I agree that there is a definite problem. It is an expensive process to patent plants and if one tries to market without a patent there is nothing to stop nurseries from picking up your plant and selling it. With a patent at least one would have some protection against nurseries profiting illegally. I would imagine that a nursery merely selling a patented plant without paying royalties would go toward proving loss of income and damages.

If one approaches a major distributor to pick up a seedling, do you know if the distributor would pay for patenting the plant?

37

Fewer companies and individuals are bothering to patent plants as it’s becoming harder to recoup one’s investment.

Most are trademarking names and investing in marketing by promoting a trademarked name instead.

This often leaves even modern cultivars unprotected in terms of propagation and promotion under a new name as could be the case in this example.

The decision to promote a trademarked rose under a new name is an ethical question rather than a legal one.

Decision to patent would depend on the company’s estimation of future profit to be made from investment.

From what I understand current costs to patent one’s self, assuming one wants to do the paperwork involved, is in the the 1200 to 1500 dollar range and around 2000 dollars to have the patent done by an attorney.

38

"I think all rose rustlers ought to be weary [sic] if a rose has a mark of modernity to them… "

I would agree. But I respectfully think that that’s a bit of a naive guideline for a rustler. Frankly, if its parent weren’t so popular, I doubt I would recognize “blushing Knockout”, for instance, as a modern rose… Admittedly, its foliage probably wouldn’t pass for a Tea or anything like that, and its hardiness would ultimately rule such out, but what gives a hybrid “modernity”?? Does K.O.'s parent, “Katy Road Pink” (more appropriately, Carefree Beauty) have “modernity”? “Softee”, sold as found “Jefferson”, I would argue does… But then who’s to say it’s not a found seedling of a modern?

I suppose that when one starts marketing any “found” rose for commercial gain, one needs to recognize a risk of liability to the original breeder and some sort of guidelines should be in place for such.

Would that it were so easy…

-Philip

39

Well Philip,

I can understand when modern roses could look like older roses… but roses such as Grandma Yellow are obviously breed within the last 100 years. Because of the form, purity of color, and rather glossy leaves… I would have to guess that this type of rose could be breed between the 1950s to now.

I think it’s a matter of getting this rose and comparing it with everything out there that already exists and is tagged.

As for seedlings, who knows. Hybrid Teas and Floribundas don’t self sow well… not when you compare to Eglatine and other species roses. How often have I’ve seen roses full of hips, and never find seedlings.

I think Heritage Gardens has several self sown seedlings which they have named, and nearly all of them are connected to multiflora. (Except for one, which looks like a Gallica.)