The words "entrepreneurship" and "innovation" have been in use for a long time. The entrepreneurship that aligns with each era, as well as the future entrepreneurship anticipated by that era, has been defined and evolved differently over time—and will continue to do so.
"Innovation" is defined as completely changing and renewing old customs, traditions, organizations, and methods. Among the terms "creative destruction" and "innovation," the former evokes a contradictory feeling, combining both positive and negative images.
However, "creative destruction" and "innovation" present the same vision. They are complementary concepts that allow for a rational explanation of a particular subject.
Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883–1950) was an Austrian economist and a leading figure of the Vienna School. After fleeing to the United States to escape the Nazis, he rose to prominence as a globally recognized economist. In 1942, Schumpeter argued that "creative destruction" was the driving force of economic development. Reinterpreting Marxist economics, he defined creative destruction—or innovation—as "the process of dismantling existing technological frameworks taken for granted and constructing new, unexpected technological systems."
Schumpeter believed that a patent system was necessary for technological innovation. He argued that patents play a crucial role in economic policy by institutionalizing inventors' exclusive rights, thereby fostering economic growth through technological innovation. While the right to patents is often justified by arguments rooted in natural rights or inalienable ownership, it is important to consider that the formalization and integration of the patent system have also been influenced by political and policy needs, particularly in developed nations.
Currently, large corporations seem to employ various strategies to extend their monopoly rights as long as possible. As a result, they may block new entrants into the industry, potentially hindering technological innovation by independent inventors or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The patent system is not merely intended to protect the interests of inventors but also to promote the dissemination of technology, facilitating further innovation. However, access to these opportunities does not appear to be equal. Of course, whether such opportunities should be equally distributed is itself a subject of debate.
Some argue that in certain fields, such as chemistry, technical information about inventions is more easily deciphered compared to mechanical engineering. This is due to advancements in analytical techniques that allow for detailed examination of purchased finished products. If the role of the patent system—to encourage technology diffusion in exchange for a temporary monopoly—can also be fulfilled through alternative means, we must question whether granting such strong exclusive rights in the name of disclosure is truly justified. Furthermore, since ongoing debates persist over the extent to which patent specifications provide practically implementable technologies in exchange for exclusive rights, skepticism about the patent system itself will continue—and must continue.
Comentarios