Competition policy increasingly treats innovation as a key parameter of competition. Yet, while economic growth depends on the accumulation of knowledge generated by many innovations over time, competition policy typically evaluates individual innovations and rarely considers the knowledge accumulation as a driver of productivity growth. Drawing on insights from endogenous growth theory, this paper argues that a distinction should be made between innovations that expand productive knowledge and those that primarily preserve or enhance rents. Using examples from competition policy and an exploratory analysis of CMA merger decisions, the paper suggests that innovation is commonly treated as an object of protection rather than assessed in terms of its effects. The paper does not seek to provide a definitive framework for identifying growth-enhancing innovation. Rather, it highlights a potentially important gap in current competition policy and illustrates why greater attention to the effects of innovation may be warranted when innovation itself is invoked as a policy objective.