Question: Closed and Open Innovation

The closed innovation model is in place when a business is developing all of its own new ideas, technologies, and endeavors completely in-house with no outside influence and no sharing of their innovations outside of the business (Salvatore, 2015, p. 305). A keen example of closed innovation can be found in companies that compete for contracts with the U.S. Government. These often develop new innovations for every new bidding opportunity, yet the competition is often so fierce that safeguarding proprietary information and intellectual property become one of the highest priorities. This creates a closed innovation environment, where the new ideas and products are protected at high cost.

Open innovation is just the opposite. A company practicing open innovation is receptive to ideas that may not have originated from within its boundaries. Perhaps the most vivid example of successful open innovation is Apple. Three decades ago Apple's computer innovations were largely constrained to smaller markets and applications, such as education, design, and graphic artistry. (Rufat-Latre, Muller, & Jones, 2010, p. 25). More recently, Apple decided to apply its innovations in these areas to other industries, first in the music business then in the communications field. Apple's open innovation in iTunes, while not the first method of purchasing and downloading music a la carte, has become the new baseline for the industry. Similarly, the iPhone has led the innovative charge in developing new applications, features and technologies to enhance and expand the use of the smart phone, but largely by opening itself to innovations from other sources. "Apple let anyone come up and market... mobile applications in exchange for a small share of the revenue generated by these apps" (Rufat-Latre, Muller, & Jones, 2010, p. 26).

Question: Can Versus Should

The statement seems reasonable enough at first glance, until one considers markets that are immoral, illicit, and illegal. The adage, "just because you can, does not mean you should" finds vivid application in this context. A simple example is the legal production and sale of addictive substances such as nicotine and alcohol. Certainly the market exists for these products, but the negative effects of the products, on those who use them and those who are in proximity to those who use them (consider secondhand smoke and drunk driving fatalities), should lead one to question the morality of contributing to such effects. Taken to an extreme example, child prostitution is a market that undeniably exists across the globe, yet few would openly argue that this "service" should be produced and sold. Yet the International Labor Organization (ILO) classifies child prostitution and pornography as "labor" (Bakirci, 2007, p. 10). Clearly this example is one of unacceptable application of the statement. Thus the statement should be applied only where questions of immoral products or the immoral use of products are not present.

What would be a good reply to those topics?