I'm not getting the point on this, so I have to ask again what you mean and this time I will do it by analysis (breaking it into pieces) and you can then see what I'm not getting and hence tell me. (I read the follow-up posts but I still don't get it). It could very well be that my mind right now is locked-in to my own train of thought and I'm not able to escape it for all the other things currently on my mind (read, no brain-power to use for non-top-priority things).
"Kagamin" <s...@here.lot> wrote in message news:j881u4$79e$1...@digitalmars.com... > Chante Wrote: > >> > there's no mercantile reason Paraphrased: There is no reason for a company in the business of selling software >> > to restrict use of a patented technology Why would they have gotten the patent if not to restrict the use of the patented thing? After R&D and associated costs, a company gets a patent to allow them to recover the R&D costs, and then some, from the exclusive right to sell (/produce?) the patented thing for a given period of time. >> > in a GPL3 software. Why would a company "void" their patent (i.e., effectively give up the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing) by stamping it "GPL"? >> >> Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it? > > GPL software cannot be sold for profit, Well-known fact, OK. > so even if the author The software company that obtained the patent? Someone rendering the patent other than the patent holder? The latter is illegal, yes? > would be charged a fee "fee" what? "fee" upon whom? Who's "authoring" anything other than the patent holder with the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing? > 1% per sold copy ??? > the patent holder will get 0 anyway. Written as "conclusive in support of <whatever>" but the path to this "conclusion", and therefor this "conclusion", is, "non-sensical"? **** Help me out here please. What am I missing?
