At first I was like "Why would you do that for only $1m? If you had that big of a breakthrough, you could easily generate that (and then a lot more) by selling it yourself." Then I read that they aren't taking the IP, and are just giving you the cash as a pure incentive. They can publish your high level approach documents, but you still own the invention.
I wish more of these contests were run that way. I think they'd yield much high quality and differentiated results with a lot more entrants.
In general yes, it's a myth that grants are only for full-time academics. However this particular grant is indeed only for full-time academics, according to its terms: http://research.google.com/university/relations/littlebox.ht... Though the full RfP does also encourage groups of students to recruit a professor and apply as a team.
Incidentally, the RfP has a nice summary of what Google thinks the main engineering challenges in winning the award are. The first one on the list is finding a way to deal with 120 Hz ripple in a way other than the current solution of huge capacitors.
Indeed. It's a much different prospect to have to not only develop some new piece of technology but also build a business around it, figure out how to transition from your day job on the one hand to being handed enough money to make a lot of those risks and problems go away if you're successful on the other hand. It changes the risk/reward equation for someone talented enough to maybe develop this sort of thing in their spare time.
> (1) for the purposes of allowing Google and the Judges to evaluate and test the Device for purposes of the Contest, and
(2) in connection with advertising and promotion via communication to the public or other groups, including,
but not limited to, the right to make screenshots, animations and device clips available for promotional
purposes
In other words they only get rights related to this contest, they cannot do anything beyond the contest with your IP.
I originally read that part as applying only to the 'display' part of the rights clause. Reading it again, I think you are right - perhaps Google really is getting zero licensing rights out of the contest.
Although they do say in their FAQ: "Google is not requiring any IP or licenses be granted except a non-exclusive license to be used only for the purpose of testing the inverter and publicizing the prize."
I wish more of these contests were run that way. I think they'd yield much high quality and differentiated results with a lot more entrants.