Loading Profile...
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
Stolen Idea now "Under Consideration"
I'm really really upset right now so I'll do my best to be nice, but it is not easy.
THIS is a ripoff of my "hem helper" idea: 122827
So I can't draw. I'm a writer. That does NOT mean I should have my idea stolen right out from under me.
This person just happened to "draw" a picture of exactly what I described in my idea submission. So WHY is this idea "under consideration" now? I submitted the idea first, so it should be 'under consideration' with this one winning influence for putting the visuals to it.
http://www.quirky.com/ideations/119105
QUOTE: The Solution
There are a couple possible ways to tackle this problem. 1. The easiest way would to invent a non-machine tool of some sort that makes hemming fun and easy. Perhaps a long, wide bendable ruler-kinda-thing with pre-made measurements to help guide individual stitches: a) take pair of too-long denim b) roll up the bottoms around this plastic guide with notches c) the stitches go: here, here, here and are STRAIGHT, sturdy, etc.
I’m
furious
A finalist/winning idea is similar to mine, and I submitted first. Why am I not rewarded?
Promoted
Response
-
Unless an idea is identical, the judgement of whether an idea is similar or actually stolen is a subjective decision. You are making a very serious accusation without solid proof right now.
Quirky evaluation has always been an open process to invite collaboration. True innovation has always come from people building off each other, and our process is designed to support that.
Is there a risk that unethical people may come on our site? Yes. And it is an individual decision whether you choose to accept that risk by participating.
-
These are two separate products.Comment -
-
No Clinton. This is ONE idea that can solve different problems depending on how it is implemented, and upon how the community molds the idea into a working product if it's selected.
The core idea behind the product -- a notched "ruler" guide with pre-made measurements for stitches -- was submitted to Quirky by me first; 119105 should be "Under Consideration", not 122827. -
-
Know what guys? Forget it. I have no desire to be upset about this. Tammy is right -- these are two different product ideas. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're "completely" different -- but they are slightly different in finish.
My apologies to Teree. Congrats on having your idea move UC. Happy sewing.
I think this issue came up due to my massive frustration finally boiling over. I figured the reason my idea didn't get selected the first time I submitted it was because Quirky don't do sewing. I wrote this whole tome about how Quirky should have an ethical obligation to let people know that it doesn't do niches. Seriously: don't get our hopes up if you have already made up your minds that you won't do X, Y, and Z. Be ethical and let us save our $10 * X submissions.
I figured, OK: Quirky don't do complex machines, anything that doesn't involve neon plastic or silicone. So I modified my idea in submission attempt #2 to not require manufacturing of a machine, to potentially involve neon plastic that Bertha can give some luv to, and somehow still solve the general problem I have.
So when I noticed that you've gone and put a sewing-related product under consideration, my natural reaction is fury, of course. I say: it's probably more marketable to make a tool that helps people do hems than it is to sell another pen to a very tiny niche of people. But, in the end, I do have respect for your decisions. And if the product we come up with that is based on the seed of Teree's idea can be used to solve my hem problem, I certainly will expect to receive my significant half of pre-influence influence. -
-
Hey Shawnee, I'm always sorry to see frustration but glad that the discussion addressed your concerns.
Quirky's stance is always that we will choose the ideas that represent the best business opportunity to us. That changes over time, especially with a company like ours, which moves so quickly. The way I see it, we are still providing a lot more options to people with ideas than they had before. -
-
1The discussion did not address my concerns. And I'm still not a happy camper with respect to this issue. I'm going to submit a drawing to my idea 119105 and guess what!? It is going to look a lot similar to Teerees. Minus the pen.
She ripped my idea off -- this is a FACT. Depending on the direction Quirky steers this idea if it moves beyond UC how much it rips off my idea is yet to be seen.
I've said it before and I will say it again. Screwing over your oldest and most loyal users is a very bad business model. Stealing one persons idea and giving credit to somebody else for that idea is downright UNETHICAL.
Quirky needs a written Ethics statement, pronto. -
-
-
Unless an idea is identical, the judgement of whether an idea is similar or actually stolen is a subjective decision. You are making a very serious accusation without solid proof right now.
Quirky evaluation has always been an open process to invite collaboration. True innovation has always come from people building off each other, and our process is designed to support that.
Is there a risk that unethical people may come on our site? Yes. And it is an individual decision whether you choose to accept that risk by participating. -
-
i'd like to point you to a thread and ask for your input on it:
http://www.quirky.com/forums/topic/4825
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
winning hair brush and my idea. -
-
1BrianK, the only thing you have against you is this:
winner: http://www.quirky.com/ideations/79072
your idea: http://www.quirky.com/ideations/79160
Since ideations are numbered chronologically (and yes, even though they were "bllind") the winning idea for the same concept was submitted first, as it was 072 and your was 160
Not so in my case. As Monty Ross said in his comment on that thread:
"The key element of the intellectual property is "brush storage" ... The fact that in the end some storage may be placed in the back of the brush is neither here nor there..... and didn't need to be. "
So let's apply this idea to this situation. The key element(s) of the intellectual property are (pick one or all -- they all match up!) "stitch guidance", "notches" and "pre-made measurements". The fact that in the end the tool might also be able to do inseams or patterns is neither here nor there. My idea was submitted first. Quirky needs to admit it made a mistake and rectify the situation. -
-
-
...because they pick specific solutions, not problems.
(Then, we enter the twilight zone: After picking the specific solution, they discard it and create their own...making it look like it was the "problem needing solving" that they picked.)
For example:
(1) Problems that need solving:
- Storing small things in hairbrushes.
- Marking seam lines for easier hemming.
(2) Solutions Q picked:
- Storing small things in the handle of a brush; access the storage through a screw on cap on the end of the handle.
- Marking seam lines with a pen attached to a wheel; roll the wheel where the hem should be, and the pen marks where the seam should go.
(3) The twilight zone:
- Q discards the idea of a screw on cap on the end of the handle and comes up with their own solution (which happens to be much more similar to another submission).
From my point of view, the issue is with Quirky, not other submitters. Since Quirky ultimately uses the problem identified in a submission, that's what we focus on when looking for copy cats. If Quirky would use the solutions they pick, then we could focus on whether the idea was identical. -
-
-
Shawnee,
Though the words are the same, the usage and meanings are different.
So, they do not describe the same key elements, and they give you no leg to stand on.
"Stitch guidance"
You: The seam line and where to place each stitch. (The device is used as the guide while hand sewing, leaves no mark on the fabric.)
Teree: The seam line. (The device leaves a mark on the fabric. The mark is the guide while sewing.)
"Notch"
You: Indicators on the device showing where each individual stitch should be placed on the seam line.
("Notches" spaced along the edge of the device, used while sewing by hand.)
Teree: Channels on the device for holding the pen.
(Pen is placed in one of several "notches", used to adjust the device before using it.)
"Pre-made measurements"
You: The width of the device determines the seam allowance. Notches determine the distance between each stitch. Non-adjustable.
("Measurements" [plural] because the device measures two things: seam allowance and stitch distance. "Pre-made" because the sewer can't change.)
Teree: The placement of the pen in a notch determines the width of the seam allowance. Several notches
("Measurements" [plural] because the device measures one thing several ways. "Pre-made" because the sewer doesn't have to measure when changing the seam allowance.) -
-
I have a prototype for a party game, and would love to submit it. However, what if someone modifies my idea and Quirky picks that modified version . . . then what happens?
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Prototype protection?. -
-
CHAMP
I’m
frustrated
Why is it that you can reject an idea stating that you didn't think that it was a big problem only to turn around and choose an idea with the same problem? The solution idea and features were almost identical. You can't tell me that adding a squeegee to the previously rejected idea made the problem more real.
Also, spray solution when wiped dries so why is a squeegee and drip pan needed anyway?
My REJECTED idea by Q:
http://www.quirky.com/ideations/109840
.
Idea CHOSEN by Q:
http://www.quirky.com/ideations/132088
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Why reject one idea only to pick the same one later from someone else?.- view 5 more comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shawnee - The main difference is mine was put through DMV by Quirky and they said they didn't think the problem was enough of a common problem. I can't change whether there is a big enough market for an idea, so I essentially felt this idea was completely shutdown by Quirky and didn't resubmit it.
Now their eyes have been opened to the fact that there is a big problem and enough of a market and they chose someone else's idea. -
-
Bryson - Your list of items you have put through DMV is much smaller than the list of all ideas submitted to Quirky. I think that since the archive wasn't made available to past ideas that at least those that went through DMV should be automatically put into the archive and given credit where credit is due. Timing was only an issue in this instance because of lack of information on Quirky's end...not mine.
At the very least you should offer lifetime free re-submissions on them so if your data is flawed at the time you reviewed it I don't have to keep paying to resubmit it until the time and your data is right. -
-
-
-
The issue isn't whether the idea was stolen. The issue is that Quirky picked "fancier featured" iterated versions of ideas we'd submitted previously and gave us NOTHING.
The problem is that quirky is saying that they pick ideas based on what problems they solve, when we are the initial entities that proposed these problems are the ones needing solved.
There needs to be, perhaps, another phase.
PROBLEMS THAT NEED SOLVED as an ideation phase. This way people who can't draw (me) or who have a good understanding of the problem's current limitations (Michael Taylor) can still earn influence for recognizing the problem that needs to be solved. -
-
I’m
Sad and Frustrated.
Two very similar ideas "Under Consideration" within weeks of each other. What gives? I'm not saying that Ron is copying my idea, it's possible he didn't see it or didn't understand this component. However, this was a MAJOR part of my idea.
Current idea: http://www.quirky.com/ideations/136997
My current resubmit idea: http://www.quirky.com/ideations/135063
My old idea: http://www.quirky.com/ideations/123495
Even my resubmit is numbered before his and it was originally submitted and put Under Consideration a few weeks ago. Why isn't mine under consideration as it is a VERY similar solution to the same problem?
Why discuss the ideas, tell me to resubmit with clarification and then totally ignore it? I'm confused.
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
VERY similar idea under consideration, but mine was Under Consideration a few weeks ago..-
Hey Erin. I've merged your thread with this one since it deals with this frequently seen issue in depth. The submissions are similar but they are not identical. It's a common problem, so it's not surprising that two or more submissions deal with microwave burn protection. Presumably, Ronald's idea was chosen this time around because of the differences in his execution.
-
-
Bobby - Thanks for the feedback and the link. By execution, do you mean his rendering? He suggests that he intends this or cooking/baking dishes rather than dishware to eat out of. While I think both could be useful, I find it hard to believe that there are more people baking in their microwave than heating up leftover and tea on a regular basis. Either way, it seems like they would be sibling products - all part of the same line.
If you find this in the "Refine" or "Product Research" phase, how will Quirky proceed? Would you amend the idea and he still gets credit or would I get credit too? -
-
-
-
-
I’m
curious
So I have resubmitted my Splash Guard because someone told me about the one currently in Under Consideration that is just like mine (minus a couple features). This person that recently submitted is new so I don't think is stealing (or searching before submitting) . I am just wondering how it is dealt with. The UC one is a flap that catches splashes and redirects into the sink and even attached the same. Mine had a pad to lean your boday on and a storage feature to hole scrubbies. Also, QDS has certainly seen mine because it made the Top 5, so it could have influenced their decision.
I know this type thing has come up before but don't understand how it gets resolved. I'm suggesting an influence split.....easy enough math. I'm sure it'll all be worked out if Q makes one. For instance, the features are addressing different problems, (not just splashes) So they could be broken down by thusly:
Gyro's Towel Holder(b/c he submitted first, unbeknownst to me): A towel holder to lay a towel across to prevent water from gathering on the counter, thus wetting the shirt.
Gryo's: Storage Shelf between sink and person
Gyro's pop up plastic splash guard
My : Pad to lean on
My: silicon flap that catches splashes and redirects into sink
My: Storage under flap or in pocket IN sink.
My: Hold in place by flap grabbing onto sink & leaning.
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Same Splash-Guard idea as my previous Top 5 submission, but they pulled this one Under Consideration.-
Joe - I'll bring this to the attention of the Invention Ambassadors. But I can't guarantee any split in influence. I've merged your post into this thread that deals with similar issues.
-
-
-
-
-
2Hey Bobert,
I was just thinking on ways to make it easier for QS to search through past submissions and thought it might be helpful if there was a way for users to add tags when they are submitting their ideas. If something moves to UC, QS could enter the tags into a database search and pull up all older products with similar tags. It would at least help QS weed out the garbage.-
Limit number of tags to 5, if 3 of them match they are considered similar. If you dont have at least 3 matching tags, its considered a different idea. This will also help solve the problem of whats considered similar.
People will have to be selective on their tags due to the 5 tag limit, and will have to focus on the problem, idea, feature, feature, feature (example: bakeware, pan, silicone, cupcake, storage) -
-
Good idea, William. I've passed this suggestion on to our Tech team.
-
-
-
-
-
The ideas are a little different so you should always vote on an idea that is similar to yours so if the other idea gets picked, atleast you will feel like you helped invent it while earning influence along the way! -
