If that were the case, china should be IP wise blooming.
It does not.
The more stiffing factor was and always has been, monopolies and oligopolies. Huge power concentrations murder the competition were they can find it. Which is why the original fractured nature of Europe was such a breeding reactor for innovations.
Local leader does not like your project xyz?
Just pack it in, go a few miles, to the next local leader in opposition who will welcome you with open arms.
Situation wise, a fractured, heavily competitive economy, with some "safe havens" (academia) for involuntarily happening knowledge exchange is the optimum for innovation.
PostScriptum: To zoom in further, on the lab level, to promote innovation, is quite distant from the pursuit of excellence everyone agreed on as the optimum today.
The ability to learn,apply and reproduce past gathered knowledge does not make you a innovator, quite contrary. Mimicry while flattering, is not able to reproduce true geniusgenesis.
One needs a gear-shifting approach, a combination of incremental researches (to follow a path through to the optimums it reveals and explore the terrain methodically) and one needs for lack of a better description, schizophrenia affected individuals, who even though their grades suck, are able to constantly recombine the currently existing ideas into new "conspiracies" and filter out the useful ones from the avalanche.
Needless to say, that guiding such a lab with the constant conflicts and drama, is a task more fitting to a theater-director, then the classic academic bureaucrat.
P.S.S: I'm not responsible for whatever hiring catastrophe this advice may produce. You may jam strange devices made from people into the leviathan at your own risk.
The more stiffing factor was and always has been, monopolies and oligopolies. Huge power concentrations murder the competition were they can find it. Which is why the original fractured nature of Europe was such a breeding reactor for innovations. Local leader does not like your project xyz? Just pack it in, go a few miles, to the next local leader in opposition who will welcome you with open arms.
Situation wise, a fractured, heavily competitive economy, with some "safe havens" (academia) for involuntarily happening knowledge exchange is the optimum for innovation.
PostScriptum: To zoom in further, on the lab level, to promote innovation, is quite distant from the pursuit of excellence everyone agreed on as the optimum today. The ability to learn,apply and reproduce past gathered knowledge does not make you a innovator, quite contrary. Mimicry while flattering, is not able to reproduce true geniusgenesis.
One needs a gear-shifting approach, a combination of incremental researches (to follow a path through to the optimums it reveals and explore the terrain methodically) and one needs for lack of a better description, schizophrenia affected individuals, who even though their grades suck, are able to constantly recombine the currently existing ideas into new "conspiracies" and filter out the useful ones from the avalanche.
Needless to say, that guiding such a lab with the constant conflicts and drama, is a task more fitting to a theater-director, then the classic academic bureaucrat.
P.S.S: I'm not responsible for whatever hiring catastrophe this advice may produce. You may jam strange devices made from people into the leviathan at your own risk.