I was not referring to the article. I was referring to the comments.

Are you deliberately trying to be dense in order to make a point? Linus completed more than 2-5% of the work on the original Linux kernel, which was a significant breadth of work. Linus, as a result, was certainly not a sole inventor, project director, or business owner. Therefore he did not direct the business aspect of the product. This was an extremely poor example. You don't understand the engineering mindset. You don't know who I am or what I invented. The reality is that there are costs associated with every project: time, money, and resources. Profit could be so indirect as promotion in the person's employment. If you do not attempt to recover costs for your work, at least to break even, then your work obviously exists in a vacuum with a lower quality of service. Engineers who justify this attitude do so because they have no business skills and not for some glorious moral as you would have me believe.

If you are not concerned with how your invention can be monetized then you are ultimately not concerned with the use or result of your invention, licensing aside. I would say that significantly degrades your quality of service in regards to end product. Even open source software returns revenue in some indirect manner if it is successful.

I have been reading the comments, but the most important thing nobody has mentioned. If your art is not original then why the hell would you apply for a patent? If you know your art is not original and are granted a patent then you deserve an ass kicking. As a result is not better to look for prior art to know that you should not apply for a patent? If you look for prior art and do not find any prior art then you are not susceptible to treble damages and should feel good that your patent is indeed ethically legitimate. Why the hell are you guys trying to offer advise based upon conduct of ignorance in order to protect conduct that is not likely ethical? Seriously, what the hell... Ultimately, you, as an inventor, can only look so far at which point the patent lawyer and patent clerk must take over. Nonetheless, you, the inventor, know the subject of the work and areas of conflict better than anybody else. As a result a quick search can do an amazing amount of good to determine the credibility of your patent application before you even attempt to file for a provisional. I did look for prior art in my invention and as a result I do feel damn good that my patent is legitimate and that residual works will be worth of patents as a result. Honestly, who wouldn't want that?