The defining characteristic of a human being is their ability to create, to take seemingly inert materials or inexplicable behaviors and manipulate it in such a way as to “manifest” a desired object or practice with an intrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is defined by something, be it tangible or abstract, which can have value on its own. Anything that derives value by simply existing, without needing to rely on external markers of value, i.e instrumental value, in order for it to be valuable.

Take a celebrity influencer for example. Would they be classified as having intrinsic or instrumental/extrinsic value? Perhaps this is debatable and vary by celebrity, but I will confidently say that most celebrity influencers have extrinsic value, meaning on their own, they are worthless, but with instrumental values such as a marketing agency, brand endorsements, collaboration with other extrinsically valued celebrities and so on, then you can make the most useless and incompetent person an overnight star, perhaps even have them run for office.. yet when all your value is derived from anything but yourself, all the reward and fame that comes with it is likewise not yours is it not?

Can anyone proudly say that their value to society is streaming Fortnite 10 hours everyday as their day job? Or that their status is derived from wearing branded clothes which exactly fits the definition of extrinsic value, defined by something that is externally placed on you, rather than what is you?

Then take an abstract concept like knowledge. While its value can be used to attain wealth, or to draw fame and glory to its holder, it can hold value even without these external rewards: the gain of knowledge in itself is a value. Its intrinsic value could be used to give value onto other things, (such as creating a tool to build something), practices (a way to throw a football or how to sing) and people (like the aforementioned celebrities), giving them extrinsic value.

The concept of inventorship likewise shares a similar parallel. An inventor is someone who comes up with an original idea, someone who discovers a process or phenonemon which has not been derived from any other invention prior. Their original work may not be the most efficient, their methodologies may be crude, their work may not even be functional, but they are given the highest intellectual honor as they have started a discipline in which countless others would join to develop their work upon.

An innovator on the other hand, is one who takes the idea which the inventor has found, and improves or makes changes to it, in order to produce a better version of what the inventor has first made. This is those who develops their work upon the inventor’s original work, a crucial component in any pursuit.. Yet without the work of the original inventor, none of them would have anything to work with, a whole community behind the invention would never even exist.

I point this out because the term “inventor” is being used too loosely and has been too conflated to include anyone who has done any intellectual work, and I say this as someone who holds a nonprovisional utility patent.

Everyone is familiar with the LED, the light-emitting diode that modernized the lightbulb. Besides being used for home lighting however, it has been revolutionary in developing modern computer technology, such as LCD screens and fiber optic cables, but it was only possible after the “invention” of the blue LED.

The person behind the blue LED no doubt contributed a lot to the modern world of technology, but to call him an “inventor” is incorrect, rather he should be referred to as an innovator, someone who, like I explained before, builds upon an existing technology (LEDs) and improves upon it (made blue LEDs from existing LED technology).

The implications in using the right terminology is profound, because no one wants to be falsely attributed, and no one wants their work stolen and claimed by someone else. I would say that there are very few inventors throughout all of history, perhaps only a handful, because the vast majority of things and concepts that we deal with have been the product of innovations upon innovations upon innovations, countless people who have improved upon an existing work, but none who can say that they were the first to come up with it. In a sense, the inventor has intrinsic value, but the innovators have extrinsic value, for their value must be derived from the inventor.

As quoted from Wikipedia:

Innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention: innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention (i.e. new / improved ability) to make a meaningful impact in a market or society, and not all innovations require a new invention.