Carson V. Conant, Editor of AdvantEdge magazine, wrote a thought-provoking blog post asking Is Invention Dead?. He contends that modern technology is getting so complex, that individual inventors and innovators can no longer afford the equipment necessary to make big inventive breakthroughs. He be believes that the big breakthroughs of the future will cost so much and will be so complicated that only universities and big corporations will be able to afford the costly equipment necessary to do the research.

"Has the complexity of modern technology progressed to the point where it has become nearly impossible for an independent man or woman to invent something that can change the world for all mankind forever, without the assistance of multi million-dollar equipment available only to universities and billion-dollar corporations? "

Link

I can agree with him in one sense, because, if you read the post in detail, he is not saying that individuals cannot invent devices and gadgets on their own. I think that for the most part, that is actually easier now than any time before in history.

He narrows his definition of "invention" in the post to "big breakthroughs", like
1. the elimination of disease
2. overcoming death
3. living in space
4. cheap reusable energy for everyone on the planet
5. the ability to negate gravity
6. teleportation

In this instance, I believe he is correct, in that these breakthroughs will most likely come from large corporations with a lot of brainpower and a lot of money to spend on expensive equipment. But, I preface my agreement with the fact that although I concede that it is more likely that these will come from corporation- I am not ruling out the possibility that big breakthroughs will come from individuals.

Bad Assumption
In another part of the post, he defines "invention" in a way I do not agree with.
"But, lets assume for a moment that software innovations are not truly inventions in the purest sense but, rather, extremely creative uses of a previous invention, the computer and the software that makes it useful.  For example Google was more an inventive use of software than it was an invention itself. "

Link

I can’t agree with this at all. Most innovation is based on ideas and inventions that preceeded them. In order for this assumption to be true, then the computer is not an invention either, because it was just the creative use of previous inventions. Babbage came up with the concept of a Difference Engine and Analytical Engine, then analog computing came along, and Turing machine concept, advances in electronics sciences, vacuum tube, microprocessors, microchips. No new invention here, just creative use of a bunch of different technologies and concepts that were creatively brought together. I do not agree.

An invention can absolutely be an invention if it is based on creative use of other inventions, in fact there is probably not one new advancement that can be pointed to that does no build upon a previous technology.

I think a lot of people would consider a car an invention. The first car, though, was based on several previous inventions!
1. The wheel (invented long ago, but this would not be considered an invention, because it was probably based on more innovative uses for rolling logs from cut down trees)
2. Metallurgy technologies/ techniques
3. Combustion engine technologies, based on previous steam engine technologies, based on research in gas pressure research
4. Glass, use of previous glass technology
5. Rubber

The same goes for the invention of an airplane.
We all build on the ideas of the past.

U.S. Patent Law defines "invention" as a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.

It is pretty subjective, but I would not rule out something as an innovation or invention because it is built on creative use of previous inventions and technologies.