How about a different approach...
Example -and sorry if I go back to computing but that's a market I do know-:
-Government subsidizes or does in-house or through through tech universities, all the R+D of semiconductors, faster CPUs, energy conservation, brighter displays that can be read in daylight, etc). All that research is patent-free (should there be patents in a socialist economy? that's a subject for another thread).
-Government then says "we want to promote laptos for school use, and we think we should do a million of them per year" -Government then releases the "general guidelines" and offers the technology from point #1 to ANY INTERESTED PARTY. -Cooperatives and SMBs can then take the chips and build their "Asus EEE" their "OLPC computer" their "C=ommiePC" ;-P in all sizes, shapes and colors... white red, with folding keyboard, with wood keyboard, square, round, for kids, for the elderly with big keys, etc.
In other words... government does the "heavy lifting" of R+D, then let the cooperatives "compete" for the buyer (people like to buy stuff and think they're original by choosing one particular item between a set of available choices, the same reason why some people buy a red sweather and others buy a brown one with a different pattern).
Any objections for this kind of approach? Wouldn't the consumer then have a "competitive market" of items to choose from, but all the R+D done by the government and passed to the cooperatives without cost?. Wouldn't then cooperatives operate in a semi-capitalist market, battling for the minds and wallets of the buyer?.
FC