Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here, but it appears that concentrator would deliver at most the amount of sunlight that falls on one not-that-big acrylic ball (which is also not that light). So each ball might deliver 50-100w of light -- nice for a small room, but not enough for a bigger spaces unless you have dozens or hundreds of them. Ironically, the idea of a movable input window under computer control might work really well for the mirror-based concentrators the inventors want to replace. Move the fiber entrance, not the whole mirror.

As it "focused the incoming rays of sunlight onto its backside", did the sun shine out of its behind?

This "idea" is either not explained very well in the article due to confusions by all parties concerned, or it's bogus. How is there any advantage to using a spherical shape for the light ray collector, if it has to be "aimed" at the light source? Why not just use a hemisphere, with the fiber optic cable mounted at the high point opposite the flat portion? That way, you could have many light collectors side by side, with them feeding their output into separate fiber optic cables, which could then be routed to a different location!
A better idea, might be to use a parabolic shape with the cable mounted at the focal point and putting a reflective coating on the rearward side of the parabola. And instead of a parabola, perhaps a simple funnel with a 45 degree angle to it would work just as well, without having to be concerned about generating a precise parabolic shape. In other words, these guys need to go back to the drawing board!
Oh, cute quip there, 88!!

Not to brag, but I did this in Skyrim like five years ago.

I like the really low tech version of this a lot better. Take one transparent 2 liter soda bottle. Fill with water. Drill hole in roof/ceiling, seal bottle in place. This is actually used in third world tropical countries where the only available sources of indoor light are windows that admit malaria-carrying mosquitos along with the light or fire of some sort (which requires fuel and costs money). No fancy light pipe but water and plastic, by they are actually enough to trap a very substantial fraction of incident daytime sunlight and transmit it, somewhat diffusely, ot the interior. Again, close to equivalent to 100 W light bulb, several of these can easily light up a room, but unlike the design above, which will IMO NEVER EVER recoup the energy required to build it, it is as close to "free" as one can reasonably get.

Clock and GPS ???? wouldn't a photo sensor(or three) be simpler and cheaper? Regardless, this seems silly. A solar panel connected to a bulb is a lot simpler still.

If only someone could invent an inexpensive luminous glass ball that would be available to people all over the world.

I put 3 of commercially available solar tubes in a dark kitchen, bathroom and porch. Basically it is a high strength plastic dome with a highly polished mirror finish tube that telescopes down into a room and has a glass skylight type difuser. On all but the darkest days and right up until sunset they really brighten the room up. No GPS or motors needed.

Note: I did this just before having the house re-roofed with metal so I got good seals around them.

Not practical. Less expensive and simpler to use solar collector, wires, light.

I love natural sunlight indoors.