Innovation differs from invention: the case of Airbnb
[Airbnb's] experience shows that you don’t always have to bring to market a completely new invention in order to be significantly disruptive
The text, however obliquely, illustrates that innovation [changing the way we live] and invention
[implementing a new concept] are two different things.
Apple didn't invent the mouse, but it used the mouse to change the way "home" computers were used.
Separately, the post mentioned -- The End of Employment --
One recalls Job Shift by William Bridges. Of it, Industry Week wrote in 1994:
William Bridges, management consultant and author of Job Shift, due to be released by Addison Wesley Publishing in October , contends that the jobs lost in the last recession will never return, because the U.S. is on its way to becoming a jobless society. "What's really disappearing isn't a certain number of jobs, or jobs in certain industries, or even U.S. jobs," he says. "What is disappearing is the job itself."
Instead of hiring workers to fill full-time, permanent job slots, employers are finding it's more cost-effective to expand and contract the workforce on an as-needed basis by hiring part-timers, independent contractors, and temporary employees. These workers are brought in for specific work assignments, not prepackaged jobs.
Are people who lose jobs history? . This topic is not unrelated to the underlying motivation for some amici briefs in Washington v. Trump (2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369).
The Gallagher post plugs a book: Leigh Gallagher is author of the new book The Airbnb Story: How Three Ordinary Guys Disrupted an Industry, Made Billions . . . and Created Plenty of Controversy.
Separately, one can "innovate" using the patented inventions of others.
In February 2017, IPCloseUp reported:
In a well-researched post, PatentVue reports that approximately 245 of Snap’s 328 issued patents have been purchased from IBM.
Excluding the patent applications, this means roughly $36-40k per patent.
Twitter acquired 945 patents from IBM in 2014 for a reported $36 million, in an effort to settle patent infringement claims brought against it by the technology giant. This comes out to approximately $38k per patent, again, excluding patent applications.