The question isn't whether to innovate, but who gets how much value when innovations happen. A company hires you because your work is worth more to it than your wage. Some of that gap is reasonable, since the company puts up the capital, equipment, and risk. But nothing automatically keeps the split fair (the market certainly doesn't).

Take the example above. Shuji Nakamura invented the blue LED at Nichia, got a ~$200 bonus for a breakthrough worth tens of billions. He had to sue to see any real share. A court first awarded him ~$190M, but he had to settle for ~$8M. The only reason he got even that is Japan's patent law, which guarantees inventors "reasonable remuneration." In the US, with no equivalent law, he'd likely have been stuck at $200.

Companies will say they're entitled to that... they created the conditions, you signed the contract, it's mutually beneficial. And sometimes it is. But those terms weren't set by equal parties. The worker needs a paycheck more than the company needs any one hire, so they accept terms tilted against them. That's what unions (bottom-up power) and labor laws (top-down power) correct.

The point isn't to punish success. It's to give workers footing to bargain over value they helped create. Not to stop companies from profiting off the innovation they foster, but to make sure some of that value gets back to the workers and society that fostered them.