Now, one could argue that there shouldn't be such laws or that they should be shaped differently, but that's a different discussion, in some ways.
Perversely it might actually be a good thing if you did have to for patents as it would force trolls into the open early on (ie before their claims run into the millions).
In practice it doesn't always work this way ( see patent trolls ) but it can be a BIG issue for people looking to enforce their patents.
Here's an interesting example:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/26/estoppel-time-bomb/id=1...
And this confused comment is a good example why the FSF recommends against using the confusing term "intellectual property".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286
But that only limits the time period for which damages may be claimed - it does not forfeit the ability to claim damages altogether, which is what may happen with trademarks; that's a pretty significant difference.
Ok, that is an interesting aspect of US patent law I wasn't familiar with. But this doesn't look like a universal property of patents, more likely it's specific to the US?
Even fewer companies do invention, so I don't think your closing argument quite proves the point it's trying to. But I do take accept your argument none-the-less.
Innovate generally means to incorporate something new, but it's true that you don't necessarily need to invent to innovate. However Apple are aggressive in litigating against anyone who they feel borrows their ideas via intellectual property laws - which would suggest they at least consider themselves to be inventors, even if you don't include that in the definition of "innovation".