Google gets a bit more than that out of the deal. It gets thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars of free publicity out of its sponsorship of the contest. That’s the sort of thing Google, as an advertising provider, knows and values. Were Google’s interest purely philanthropic, it could donate $10 million without announcing its generosity to the world.
But more subtly troubling is that Google’s insistence that contest participants part with their ideas without compensation echoes the company’s tradition of making use of people’s intellectual property without payment. What is Google’s index after all, not to mention YouTube, but a treasure trove made from words copied from copyrighted content? Those words might be worthless in isolation but they’re invaluable aggregated and indexed.
If you have a good idea, a really good idea, the sort of brilliant idea that might win Google’s contest — a way to produce a $0.01 straw that removes all impurities from contaminated water, for example — why give that valuable idea away when you could commercialize it? You could start a company to support your idea, provide jobs to people, and help humanity at the same time.
Google’s Charity, At Your Expense – Google Blog – InformationWeek.
There was a reply to my post about Google’s 10^100 project that brought this post to light. I would like to clarify a few things.
It is true that you will not make anything out of this idea. It is true that technically, Google will gain publicity from your idea.
However, that train of thought, in itself, makes you as bad as the picture the author paints of Google. If you have an idea that will save the world, and you’re thinking about making money out of it, then you are just “like Google” and trying to figure out how to profit from it.
If your idea can be implemented faster and reach further with Google’s support, would you not give it up? Or would you rather hold back from saving the rest of the world, so you can profit from it?
Would you slowly sell bits of your global warming averting services to companies seeking “carbon credits”, or would you give it freely so the whole planet avoids destruction?
Would you rather die that rich man, having profited from the world’s impending destruction, knowing that you your riches doomed countless generations, including your own?
Or would you rather die knowing you freely gave away technology that saved the generations to come and made the world “a better place for your children and grandchildren”?
Maybe if it were possible and your idea was well thought out, Google could actually employ you to consult on your own project.
Also, it would be interesting to see if Google patents the technology in their name, or in the name of humanity, and free in pertpetua to the world for humanity’s use. If this is the case, I would have no reservations with giving my idea freely, even if Google gains through publicity.
The politics of which one entity profits, always stalls the benefit for the greater good of the current people and generations to come.
