[typewithrhythm]

This is a completely strange idea to me... You are seemingly measuring innovation within a specific product and forgetting that the product itself is a new creation that came without any monopoly as it built.

People eventually recognise a good idea, you don't need a well funded research group to have one. You need an environment where it's plausible for the new thing to work and be profitable.

Breaking up a giant like google seems that it would make it easier to promote an new idea, as it has less risk of being crushed by the interests of a tangentially related company.

[tehjoker]

The idea behind nationalization is that it takes Google out of the market economy and the profit motive. It's then possible to rationally design supports for new ideas, and removes one of the biggest reasons for fighting new ideas.

[typewithrhythm]

My experiences with actual nationalised companies does not support this; in general they are no more likely to support innovation or good design that supports other industries than the private sector, but they absolutely will create legal issues when trying to innovate around them.

Telecoms in Australia is probably the best modern example I can think of, the nbn was given a monopoly and now delivers an expensive inferior product, and there is no real way to compete or innovate around it.

It doesn't exactly take them out of the market, it just creates a enterprise with legal protections and non market motivations for what it actually does.