having had to fund

Status
Not open for further replies.

shabani

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
Hello everyone,

I'm confused by this phrase. Can anyone please tell me why the writer didn't use"having to fund" in the following sentence?

It is then protected against competitors benefiting by imitating the new product without having had to fund its development.


It would make sense to me if it was past tense
 

billmcd

Key Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
In your example, "without having to fund" is used as a projection and not as a completed action, whereas "having had to fund" is used to indicate that the funding was actually completed in the past.
 

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Hello everyone,

I'm confused by this phrase. Can anyone please tell me why the writer didn't use"having to fund" in the following sentence?

It is then protected against competitors benefiting by imitating the new product without having had to fund its development.


It would make sense to me if it was past tense

I'm not sure what you mean by 'past tense'...? Are you calling 'having to fund' past tense?

But tense isn't a crucial part of the meaning anyway. The inventor bears the costs of development added to any costs of actual production. The copycat benefits from only having production costs. What is important in the comparison is that the copycat goes straight to the production phase, without having had to fund the development (that is, without any need to make investment in it).

b
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top