Hacker News Reader

Comment by fjcaetano | Hacker News Reader

In my opinion, this is the best example of a selfless action that turns itself into positive a valuable marketing. Volvo gave up profiting millions (billions?) for "the sake of mankind" which gave them an image of a company that cares, not only for their customers, but one that cares for everyone.

Well done.

View on HN

One could argue that the forgone licensing fees were simply a marketing expense. Was their invention of the seat belt well known by the public at any point?

In any case I agree, this is an example that should be followed by many others.

I'm afraid the decision was made because the CEO had a bad car crash experience.

So selfless actions done by people with related bad experiences don't count?

Every such move counts as good. I was pointing out that the action was not truly selfless, since the circumstances were such that he started developing towards safety. He might as well be directed towards something bad if the specific situation was different.

The move was correct, but for the wrong reasons.

By your interpretation there are almost certainly no true selfless acts. They're all done for the wrong reason. At this point, we can't know that the release of the patent wouldn't have happened regardless of the personal tragedy so stating that it was for the wrong reason is absurd. It's not like they sat on it for 15 years, then suffered the tragedy, then released the patent.

Unless they also invented time travel, the CEO's actions didn't help with the accident in question, and so don't disqualify it from being "selfless".

What are you talking about? Here is the quote from the article: >>At the time, Volvo was already pushing its brand as a safety conscious automaker. Its CEO, whose relative had recently died in a car crash, decided to hire Nils Bohlin, a man who had previously designed ejector seats for fighter jets, as chief safety engineer (a new position).<<

The increased safety in future car cannot save his already dead relative. So it was selfless, it didn't alter his past, didn't make anything better for him.

Jonas Salk, the developer of the Polio vaccine who chose not to patent his discovery, is a prime example as well: "When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

So, his experiences let him empathise with others? I'm not sure that's a bad thing if it's the case - seems like one of the more noble motivations someone could have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com