"I don't think PARC's problem was lack of innovation." The way the terms are used in the article, I think you mean, "lack of invention." Both of you are in ag

"I don't think PARC's problem was lack of innovation." The way the terms are used in the article, I think you mean, "lack of invention." Both of you are in agreement that PARC of old was great at invention (building new things), not so good at innovation (bringing ideas to market). PARC now claims they're better at innovation. The external consensus is that they're not nearly as good at invention as they used to be. I'm not holding my breath to see what they come up with.