Once a friend asked me, why India fails in introducing any remarkable innovation or invention in market?
Another friend complained that in India people tend to copy or duplicate others innovation rather than engage their energies in innovating techniques further by themselves.

That’s a very misguided complaints. Why is Cuba lagging in innovation? What should Castro do to bring more innovation in Cuba? How should Sudan bring more variety of rice to its people? << — That’s how stupid the complaint about innovation and inventions are. If only by copying and duplicating we were able to fulfill the demands of everybody in the society then maybe we can complain about it. But the idea ‘India has less innovation’, is wrong on so many levels.

First of all how is ‘innovation of India’ matters? You can still buy original authentic innovation of America, sure the govt follows protectionist policies, in which case the argument should be, ‘Why are we being devoid of innovation?’. How does innovation of India helps me any more than innovation of America? Sure ‘prosperity in India’ is a different thing, if someone wants more prosperity in India, then its a different issue, the prosperity of America only marginally benefits me with the increasing investments etc(considering you live in India).

But if an American company invents something, should your complain be why isn’t that innovation available to us, rather than why don’t the people who hold the same passport as I do own that innovation.

This is not a IP issue, lets presume Apple/Nokia owns the IP rights of iPhone, they can still sell iPhones to you and me. What is the weird fetish that Reliance or Tata must be owning the IP rights of iPhone?

Secondly those people who are complaining about copying stuff, what do they care more? What world are these people living in? Do they care more that we have more innovation, or we live more prosperously? Contrary to what people in India may think, it is still a very backward country to be really getting worried about Innovation.

Maybe people living in big cities, or only in the prosperous India are somehow fooled into this idea that India’s next big problem is ‘innovation’, but they have no idea.

Our problem isn’t innovation, we are quite innovative for our means, our problem is CAPITAL. Even if we were to copy every technology America developed(forget the ridiculousness of IP rights for a minute), we still cannot produce all those things for our people. I donno what innovation some elites in India are missing(who I am pretty sure at the same time support 100% education for all, destroying the entrepreneurial capital even more), its easy to see that we don’t have the same innovation US has, but its really impossible to see the entrepreneurial capital we don’t have.

If there is Rs 1 Crore available for a project in India it will be spent on producing more iPhones(to bring its price down and make it more accessible to people), than trying to invent a Droid.

In all realizing stop selling innovation in India as something free market would accomplish, only the most prosperous economy in the world would be responsible for inventing 80% of all the innovation in the world, rest all will have to copy and follow. Unless we are knocking America off from the ladder, there is no way we are getting any innovation as people in India would like to see.

On the other hand, in a socialized government regulated market, the innovator need to convince everyone, a majority or at least a significant minority of his fellow citizens in order to implement his innovation.

It is not only the characteristic of socialistic or mixed economy democratic government, rather it is the characteristic of any form of government. If there is government, it is to curb the progress at all fronts, such is the nature of collective system of any order.
Columbus had to waste many years just to convince the then government of Spain to invest for his voyage and was extremely lucky to get some finance.
French academy of science actually termed Pasteur’s claim that germs causes diseases. Vaccination was hugely criticized an opposed by the government representing collective majority. Edison was ridiculed when he claimed that he might create electric light. Wright brothers were regarded as phoney and crank. All critically opposed Ford.
And the current issue of Tata Nano is no different. Inspite of awareness of all goods it may bring, Nano project was vehemently opposed by the system in W.Bengal and not only that, any such projrect do suffers the bureucratic and political consequential delays and retardation that would not be the case in a free market.
Often government claims that it is to protect innovators and hence provide encouragement for innovations and hence it plans for their protection by means of regulated finance and some ridiculous laws such as copyrights and patents.
As a matter of fact, patents reduces the chances of further improvement and innovations as the one who once introduced a new innovation never feels any necessity to innovate further as patents secures him against any further competition and he may keep enjoying the specific profits of his innovation for too long extent.
What it results in is the decrease in overall production of market and an irrational basis for the producer to keep the prices of products too high, as no other competitor can provide same improved product at any lesser prices, and that increases dilemma of poor as although there are better products, medicines, equipments that may help the poor, but the poor fails in gaining them because of high prices.
That is, government interference not only decreases the chances of further innovation and improvement, it causes further poverty and discourages other innovators.
Because of patents, the other innovators feels forced to find out some other method to achieve the same innovation without any improvement, while that same energy and strength could have been invested to improve the innovation further. Obviously, patents and copyrights cause wastage of resources.