"And outsourcing can often deliver real innovation, especially in economic development "

The title quote [And outsourcing can often deliver real innovation, especially in economic development. ] appears in the New York Times.

In that outsourcing does change the way we live, it can be considered an innovation, but whether it "delivers" innovation is another matter.

As noted many times, innovation and invention are quite different things. We do not want to be in world in which we expect outsourcing to deliver invention. If we rely on invention mercenaries, our economy is not "developing", it's gone.

See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-is-rick-clark.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-bazaar-economy-based-on-innovative.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/08/ibms-us-7571105-issues-of-patent.html

***Separately, see the New York Times editorial Quick, Patent It! relating to the upcoming argument on Bilski:

The Federal Circuit’s test is a sensible one for deciding what inventions are worthy of patents.

The Constitution’s Patent Clause restricts patent protection to the “useful Arts,” which at the time primarily meant the work of skilled workers and artisans, particularly in engineering and manufacturing. The patent laws Congress has passed, going back to the 1790 Patent Act, have restricted patent protection to inventions of this sort.

If the court sides with these patent applicants it would open the door for all sorts of “processes.” That would lock up all sorts of techniques — including abstract ways of thinking about future events — that should not properly belong to anyone.

**UPDATE

A Bloomberg story on Bilski on 9 Nov 09 runs under the headline: Microsoft Battles Novartis in High Court Patent Limits Dispute