Absolutely spot on. The current definition of innovation is completely wrong. IP is a business protection and the creation of a possible saleable or litigation asset. Uniqueness CAN be a great opportunity and allow for big market share. Both of these things can be great to have, the first is a big plus the second can be a plus and a minus, depending on the circumstance. Now we need step back here - what we want is lots of competitive businesses on the world stage, this matters not just externally, but internally too. This is because our stage will become part of the world stage in the end. At the moment we have lots of 'copy' businesses, that in honesty, to a large extent could not compete on the world stage, against more efficient business cultures. We therefore must foster an attitude through education and controlled exposure, to allow these to improve and improve to come up to world standards and then hopefully surpass them in some cases. Each step on this path is an innovation for these business, and they will do it faster with the life of business (Cash) So lets change our definition of innovation, to cover any innovative step for a business itself, assessing each investment on a return on investment basis. So if a business tries to do something new, but will not return increased revenew, profitability, market share ... then even if new we don't back it. Each case is on its merit. Yes the old corruption, rears its head again, but there will be corruption, the trick is to put the right people in the right places, business leaders commited to success and the profits from it We need a portfolio here, the 'copy' small businesses are flourishing, they need protection, support and time, open them straight up with shock treatment to the world market, and Russian companies won't exist. Then we need small and media high techs and then large corporates. Don't limit innovation, let it happen. The market and the people need generate it.