"The law, almost by definition, cannot be written to foresee all innovation. So it is a given that by definition many, if not most, innovations will fall outside laws."

That very much fails to be the case. Suppose for instance we had a law that said "no new way of doing X is legal." That law would, in fact, foresee (not de re, but de dicto) all innovation in the realm of doing X, and it would exclude it from the law---that would actually be its intention! That might be a bad or stupid law, but that's not the point; no innovation in the realm of doing X falls outside it. You presumably mean that something falls outside the law in the sense of falling outside what's legal, which is very different, because something can only be illegal if it's within the scope of the law. (My choice of rye bread over whole wheat falls outside the law; the law is silent on it.) It's of course also possible that something very new comes along and it's just unclear* where it stands vis-a-vis the old laws, in which case, sure, the laws don't foresee that (unless some innovative (!) legal argument is brought to bear to show how the new phenomenon falls under the old laws after all).

* (this is actually material for support for the claim that many innovations fall outside the law, though not support that's very helpful to you. My innovations in the preparation of toast, for instance, are likely to fall outside the law, as beneath the law's notice. My innovations in murdering my enemies may also fall outside the law as such, that is, it may not be a legal matter that I killed them precisely this way.)

It also, of course, isn't the case that---as often seems to be assumed on HN---the innovative is the good. (Trivia: when Catullus in the first Catilinarian says that someone was a revolutionary, he describes that person as "novis rebus studentem"---pursuing "new things". Not every revolution is a positive one.) Thus the final goal may well not be compromise, and a good thing, too. Nor is it obvious that if the final goal is compromise or something like it---and compromise, in itself, is an exceptionally stupid thing to have as a goal, just about as stupid as having novelty, in itself, as one's goal---the onus is on the government to move first. Why doesn't the company in question start by making overtures to the government, you know, making a positive first step, instead of starting off by transgressing the law? A friend's summary of Tom Slee's complaint about Über et al. seems apt: "He's a social democrat; I suspect when he looks at these companies, he sees a bunch of venture capitalists deciding that they're going to unilaterally reshape the licensure frameworks that dozens of separate localities have democratically enacted over decades of contestation, and that seems a clear affront to a number of (legitimate) values." If you're going to speak the language of compromise, i.e., deny that you're after a unilateral reshaping, then why do you start off with a transgression designed to accustom people to your service before you've cleared it with the relevant authorities?

Anyway, and this is really to the parent of my comment above: the government sponsors an incredible amount of innovation. The National Science Foundation, for instance, gives out a lot of money to scientists; I'm sure not all of the work is ground-breakingly transformative, but that's the nature of the beast. The NEH, the CDC, the NIH, all public universities, the NEA, lots of non-national governmental grant-making or study-sponsoring agencies---all of these things support innovation of one sort or another.

Whether what they support is as innovative and rad-i-kool as yet another unlicensed car service, I admit I don't know.