Adam Davidson's May 27 presentation on National Public Radio, listen here, really hits the nail on the head when it comes to the positive, "greater good," influence of crowdsourcing. He cites what seems to be a profound example of corporate social responsibility: IBM allowing 'open collaboration' on its pride-and-joy supercomputer, Blue Gene.
Is the opening of Blue Gene's ungodly-fast network to the public a true sign of corporate social responsibility (i.e. the network is used by influenza researchers, etc.), or is IBM simply setting a legal trap for researchers soon to discover a billion dollar idea or formula while using Blue Gene?
Unfortunately, Davidson doesn't elaborate on his take on IBM's true intentions. Surely, IBM allowing outside researchers access to Blue Gene's network should be commended, but to what extent? For instance, if the influenza researchers Davidson mentions discover a miracle, blanket influenza vaccine while using Blue Gene, what restrictions can or would IBM put in place. Obviously, millions if not billions would change hands for a vaccine like this, but if IBM didn't like the financial terms of their cut, could they block the theoretical drug's distribution?
I guess the answer really isn't about either corporate social responsibility or the realities of business. At the end of the day IBM probably would be in line to pocket a much larger share than the influenza researchers themselves, but at least the greater public good would have been served. Frankly, I don't much care where the money goes. If a vaccine like that is invented with the help of Blue Gene, I'm getting it, no matter who pockets the proceeds.
Thoughts?
What Harry Means to Me
-
Instead of writing a review of how great Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows: Part II (because it's obvious how awesome it is), I thought I
would share wh...
12 years ago
I think you're right. When the researcher discovers the new vaccine for the influenza by using Blue Gene, IBM somewhat served the corporate social responsibility already by giving the researchers tool to discover the vaccine (I hope I'm on the right track). Researchers wouldn't have been successful if there wasn't for Blue Gene, so I think IBM has right to receive money for the contribution.
ReplyDeleteThe Blue Gene supercomputer seems to be a prime example of how crowdcourcing can be extremely positive for a corporation. It seems fair to say that somewhere in there, like you said, they could pull out some legal loophole and turn a very nice profit. However, I think the idea of crowdsourcing demands social responsibility because once they started the operation, to turn back on any of the clients could be a media nightmare
ReplyDeleteGood point! As the article suggests, I think IBM opened Blue Gene to the public because they felt the publicity sorrounding such positive "CSR" would be worth more than any fee they could ever charge to use the supercomputer
ReplyDelete