Why Do Corporations Acquire Web Properties?

To say that large corporations don't come up with new ideas is to ignore the basic principles of business itself. While I might agree that larger companies are inherently slower at implementing new ideas I think a quick glance at industries such as the auto industry or even the razor-blade industry would reveal that new ideas are an important part of their business health.
To use your examples, take a look at Yahoo. Your claim that they are not creative and explains their purchase of services such as Flickr. However is it not the case that Yahoo has its own R&D division? Does Yahoo not come out with new services at a fairly rapid rate, especially given that its services are used by millions of people? Or take Fox, perhaps you may disagree, but I would think that Fox's constant generation of new media - I am thinking of television material - would count as a creative endeavor. While Fox may not be creative in the web industry does that mean that it isn't creative in other industries? Given the focus of the company is not necessarily on the web, I find it unlikely that their performance in the web is indicative of the company as a whole.
If a company were to lack creativity then it would be replaced by another more creative company over time. That is a basic economic theory, and one that is the driving force behind much progress. Of course there are exceptions, especially concerning products which are essential and non-negotiable. Still, looking at most industries would reveal that the companies are constantly making small improvments on products or introducing new products. To anticipate, the notion that all of these industries operate off a single leader and an army of copy-cats is untenable. At the very least each company in a given industry each company must differentiate itself from the competition. Therefore, even if a company doesn't dream up the "large step" and simply takes it from another, it must still define itself through its own "small steps."

Very insightful and well written, this guy obviously has btdt.

Would you say that this is the main reason why larger companies are slow to adopt web standards?

The argument is semantical. Being "creative" or "innovative" is relative and often times subjective. Is the design of a motherboard less creative than a Matisse? Or a successful RFP vs. a hit song? Depends who you talk to. There are so many reasons for acquisition and many we don't hear about. There is a focus on web acquisitions because we, users of Newsvine, are entrenched in the media. I think the Fox/TV argument is good because it makes an utterly a subjective argument. By saying "...perhaps you may disagree..." (which I do) announces it's subjectivity. I disagree with the notion that being a copy-cat is untenable as that is exactly how "innovation" is propigated. Someone creates something new then everyone adopts it until someone else creates something newer etc...

The creativity advantage of small start ups over the giants is there, but does it help the giant to become more creative once it has swallowed the dwarf? I really can't see how. Once Flickr is a part of Yahoo, the instinct of the big corpers @ Yahoo asks itself where does Flickr fit in the big machine, and sooner or later, this sort of thinking drowns and kills the Flickrism of Flickr. As it did with Blogger. As it did with ICQ. The one company that might survive this fate is Myspace, and that's because it bigger, web presence wise, than the company that bought it.

Jeebs3000, I think you misunderstood me, I understand that creativity is a hard thing to pin down, but was precisely my point; namely that it isn't fair to deride corporations as being uncreative because they need to create all the time in order to survive. As for copy cating, I don't think many companies copy a product exactly, which was my point, again, companies can't simply copy their competitors but must improve even a little on their products.

I heard Yahoo! wants to buy newsvine?!?11

I never understood why ebay bought Skype for such a huge amount of money, your article explains it. They wanted the product that hit the market first and so got all the publicity and all of the users.

Like Million dollar homepage did when it was released, it spawned lots of clone websites however none of them did anywhere near as good as the original.