The main characteristics of today’s innovation culture are as follows:
Key decision makers within companies and institutions show ever-decreasing levels of morality. This means that in the process of achieving their goals, they are not hindered by a moral compass but instead focus on how they can get away with immoral behaviour without breaking the law en by bending rules.
Side effect of this decline in morality is that laws will not improve, since the leaders and governors of a nation regard laws and rules as a nuisance, something annoying that has to be dealt with. These leaders don’t feel the obligation to protect and improve the law.
The response we received on before mentioned finding in our talks with key political parties is the following:
they don’t consider their role to be one that fights or prevents the decline in morality. In other words the political leaders don’t feel the need to lead by example nor to develop a policy to fight the decline in morality
Government Innovation Funds are directly aimed at big financially strong companies and moreover politicians and governments are convinced that only big established companies are capable of innovating successfully. Furthermore these funds spent considerable amounts on process innovation, which does not qualify as disruptive product innovation that results in new economy and the corresponding new revenue models and jobs. Part of these funds also end up in the hands of private equity funds who claim to invest in start-ups. The bitter reality however is that these private equity companies end-up using these funds for scale-ups (for a large part in other countries) or for so called facilities like office space and support by established big companies to help these start-ups. The reality however is that the start-ups are being brain picked and used in an organised manner.
After receiving funds these big companies still have to come up with ideas and innovative projects. Since they don’t have the creativity nor the culture to innovate, they will invite creative entrepreneurs to seduce them to enter in a so called strategic partnership based on reciprocity. These creative entrepreneurs have no choice then to co-create with a big company that has access to funds. The end game most often is that the big company observes how the creative entrepreneurs build the innovation and implement the launching project followed by terminating the collaboration based on false claims and after they have reverse engineered the innovation of the creative entrepreneur.
Small and midsize enterprises who cannot afford expensive lawyers need to rely on their legal insurance. However the legal insurance policy does not cover IP related conflicts. The latter results in a non-level playing field for small and midsize innovation companies. The big companies are aware of this design fault in the Innovation Ecosystem and will abuse the weak IP legal position of the small and midsize innovation companies.