I think that open-source sometimes starts as a reverse-engineering endeavor, but then, once it has achieved that goal, it normally moves beyond just copying the original idea. This is the point where real innovation starts to happen.

Your parallel between open-source and communism/socialism (which I personally think is flawed) may be based on how people defend or fight for open-source. Propaganda abounds.

But if you actually look at the majority of OS projects, they are not just trying to replicate a piece of software, they want to make it do what they want it to do. So yes, they have to replicate it, but that just serves as a springboard to bigger and better things. Once they have that 'replication' or 'springboard' then that is when innovation really starts to happen. If all they do is reverse-engineer a piece of software and leave it at that, most peoples reaction is "meh".

I grant that your solid examples of MRI and such may seem valid, but real innovation in those types of fields really comes from theory... Its the implementation that racks up the dollars. So I think that *REAL* innovation has nothing to do with how much money you are allocated. The money is needed to make innovation materialise, but innovation comes about nonetheless. To paraphrase; 'shit happens'.

On a side note, I have a lot of really fantastic and innovative ideas. So if anyone out there has a lot of really fantastic money, lets do lunch sometime.