If they are patented, it's illegal to propagate them and you should choose another cultivar to work with. If you grow non-patented cultivars this way, your apples will be the same as apples grown on rootstock, but your trees will not benefit from the many advantages rootstock might provide.

Rootstock can influence:

1. ultimate size of your tree
2. growth rate
3. amount and complexity of maintenance
4. ease of harvest
5. productivity
6. preciosity
7. senescence
8. hardiness
9. adaptation to different soils and soil conditions

10. drought tolerance
11. how well the tree will be anchored
12. whether the tree will need permanent or temporary support (not just how well it's anchored)
13. fruit size
14. resistance to certain diseases
15. resistance to certain pests
16. rootstock and scion graft compatibility
17. tendency to sucker
18. and I'm sure I'm leaving off at least something.

Do you have a Tree you want to clone?

It's ridiculous that you can patent a tree. You might as well patent the moon and the stars.

I own the patent on the moon and a couple stars. Email me if you like I am currently cloning apple trees

This post was edited by Galasoneth on Tue, Jul 16, 13 at 17:08

"It's ridiculous that you can patent a tree."

Well, you might be right, but the people that have invested years of their life in working to produce such trees don't think so. Many of them wouldn't have done it if they couldn't be ensured that their work would pay off. Also, the people that enjoy the fruit (literally and figuratively) from their work may not think so, because without the invention of the new tree, they wouldn't get to enjoy that particular type of fruit or tree at all. Also, the farmers that grow the trees don't think so, because they know that, without the patent, they wouldn't have the patented cultivar in the first place. Even the potential hobbyist, who just wants to propagate trees, shouldn't fret with the many hundreds of other cultivars out there for them to work with. They could probably never reasonably run out of potential cultivars to work with even if they never illegally propagated a thing. Come to think of it, maybe this patent thing isn't so bad after all!

Actually, I do kind of understand your feelings, but I don't think you are looking at the whole picture from a rational standpoint. Or, maybe you are and we don't need these new types of trees after all. There is another side to the story though, that you may have completely missed.

Nope, I didn't miss anything. I just don't think you should be able to patent trees.

I know someone who found a tree in the mountains, patented it and sold the patent rights to a nursery. I don't feel bad cloning this particular one. Besides, doesn't a patent expire after 18 or 20 years?

"I know someone who found a tree in the mountains, patented it..."

If you are saying that they found the plant growing in the wild, then the patent is not valid and the patent holder likely gave false information on the patent application. IF what you say is correct AND you are sure that you can back it up, you probably should have little fear of ignoring that patent.

People who find a superior tree in the forest are usually content to be able to name it. This is not creating anything, only bringing it to our attention. If you spend your life making hundreds of crosses between plants to create a new plant, you should be paid for your efforts, via a plant patent. Al