Another design competition, another set of dodgy T&C's

Following the recent LG competition:

where the Terms and Conditions caused a lot of concern amongst some people (and which were eventually changed so that entrants retained the rights to their own ip), here’s another competition whose sponsor thinks designers should work for free:
By entering the competition, you agree that “All rights to the intellectual property submitted will be the property of Ardica.”

I don’t think I need to go into the rights or wrongs of such a clause, they were covered pretty well in the LG thread. Suffice to say that whether or not you win, you have no right to show your own work. But why is someone like David Kelly agreeing to judge this competition? In a similar discussion on LinkedIn’s Industrial Design group, it was pointed out that the IDSA refuse to endorse any competition with these kind of restrictions: “Do participating entrants retain right, title, and interest to their designs and the intellectual property contained within their submissions? (If no, then the competition cannot be endorsed.)” Would IDEO give away all intellectual property rights to an idea because their was a chance they might win a contract? Why does Kelly think these kinds of T&C’s are acceptable?

This is the real question to be asked. It is easy to understand why a student, or recent grad, or someone simply trying to boost their image would enter this kind of competition. It is “fun”. It gets them a portfolio piece, etc.

But the support of competitions by very recognizable individuals is disheartening. I do hope that David Kelly rethinks his support based on those T&Cs.