This is reductionist enough to have some truth; excessive concentration
of revenue stifles innovation. I think
of my poor friends slaving away in research labs of large
corporations, with very little chance that
the ideas they develop will see the light of day unless they happen
correspond to the one or two
strategic directions a company can have at any single time.
Revenue is determined by market share etc, and market share
internationally is biased by bullying,
lead by various governements under the veil of intellectual property
and market access.
(What was the justification for the threatened Super 301 on Tron, for
However, if you take many kinds of important innovations, commercial
gain plays no part:
the three main drugs in the AIDS cocktail were developed by public
money, for example* (making
the commercial exploitation of them even more obscene.)
I cannot find the URL, but an interesting recent review of the great
exhibitions (London and Paris) from
the late 1800s suggests that smaller countries get no overall benefit
from patents, historically, IIRC.
* One was developed for another purpose with public money, but applied
to AIDS by a commercial co.