I didn't miss the point; I disagree with it. Yes, it "takes a village" to bring that technology to a marketable life, but ultimately the large part of that cha

I didn't miss the point; I disagree with it. Yes, it "takes a village" to bring that technology to a marketable life, but ultimately the large part of that chain isn't doing the "innovative" part (the actual out the box conceptualizing to fruition of a truly novel concept) but taking said innovation and making it consumable by a perceived (or primed) audience. I am making a distinction between participants. What you are saying implies that its those because it makes something "better off" but I could say that about a lot of things that are not novel either (i.e. vaccination of poor populations that can't otherwise afford it), so innovation doesn't necessarily mean (or in my mind have to be) marketable to large numbers (i.e. novel new treatment for a niche disease). Innovation != "bring a technology to life" (take it to market), its proving/crafting something truly novel. Whether it makes it to wider usage doesn't make it any less novel, nor does successfully selling non-novel ideas at scale make that success any less valuable. I simply refuse to conflate the two.