"Perhaps the error was in accepting the fact that the object was a screw simply because it was shaped like a screw."

I guess I'll use the language of The New London Group here and cite the "available design" of objects produced for other intentions as being important to both the lowering of the cost of innovation, as well as the sociopolitical act of co-opting the artifacts produced by the in-place power structure and using said consumables for unintended purposes. In this act of "innovat[ing] on existing platforms" there is an element of the remix: reassembling our conception of an object into something that (hopefully) is new, furthers the discourses surrounding the object and its use, and (hopefully) leads to some benefit (social or emotional or cultural capital) for both the remixer and the audience, who in turn, in the spirit of remix, might also remix and innovate derivative innovations.

For instance, we might come to a meta-discussion on our role in the game (it would appear that the TINAG wall has been broken already, by the designers) and look at Christy Dena's discussion of EVOKE and INVOKE--and how parody itself might serve as a form of innovation [perhaps Christy's language is influencing my own obsession with "design" in this post].

Echoing some of my thoughts on co-opting of artifacts as sociopolitical act, I think it is important to seek an understanding of the context of "innovation". Who is doing the innovating? How do they fit into the cultural context of the site of innovation? Do the "innovators" understand the needs and wants of the community for which they are attempting to provide innovation? It might be appealing to adopt a Messianic aura to our own contextualization of providing innovation (i.e. "we" innovate to "help/save" someone less fortunate), but the separation inherent in the syntax of such a claim would seem a barrier to understanding the actual context of a community. To be clear, I don't see a claim like that being made here; the geographical reach of the EVOKE network actively seeks to undermine such language, I'd imagine. And multiplatforming would be an argument against a neglect of access issues. But, as Smith and Zuckerman point out, it is quite important to understand (or seek an understanding) of the context of the site of innovation.

In short, hacking technology and bending it to the needs of a community is a smart, efficient way to innovate that invokes the element of resistance inherent in the need for innovation. But, the needs of the community need to be understood (immersion would seem to be preferable to Smith and Zuckerman) in order for innovation to be meaningful.