I've been a Quirky member for almost 2 years now and I cannot count the number of times I've seen similar submissions to yours. Its not a unique idea. I know you probably feel cheated a bit, but dozens of people have submitted similar submissions before you ever did, and I'm sure we'll continue to see similar submissions in the future.

Is there any justice?

No recourse.

Mike, please don’t accuse me of plagiarizing your idea when that’s not true. You were not the first to come up with such a concept, and neither was I. Products similar to our idea are already on the market, see the product links added section on my submission. So to say I copied your idea is not true because I never saw your post before I submitted my post, and the concept was already on the market before you ever submitted your post!

Mike, quirky is a site used to upload PRODUCT ideas not CONCEPTS. A PRODUCT can be invented and used but a CONCEPT can not. Tangible products are based on abstract concepts and I think what’s going on here is your are accusing me of stealing your PRODUCT idea when in fact we have 2 different product invention ideas submitted to quirky base upon one common CONCEPT. Upon closer examination, I think I can show that you and I actually submitted 2 totally different products ideas Mike and I’m pretty sure anyone who analysis this situation will agree with me.
The CONCEPT is nothing new; use a remote to located lost items. Like I said, tons of products already exist on the market that work based on this CONCEPT. You can not claim to be the originator of this CONCEPT Mike, but you can claim to be the originator of the specific PRODUCT idea you submitted on quirky. Here is why I think your submission and mine are not the same PRODUCT but merely of the same CONCEPT. These are some aspects of our two SUBMITTED product ideas which differ significantly enough that I think we submitted two different PRODUCT ideas here. And remember, its not what you wanted to say that counts or what you meant, its ONLY what you wrote down and submitted on quirky that can be considered here.
In my title I SPECIFICLY said to develop an "IPHONE APP" that “SYNCS wirelessly” to a “BEEPER” on your keys that when “ACTIVATED” will “RING” loudly. Your submission was quite different then mine from both a functional and technical standpoint. You submitted an idea for an “APP” on your cell phone which is used to “CALL UP YOUR KEYS” using a “GSM” signal and when activated, the device on your keys is supposed to “BEEP, FLASH, AND VIBRATE” and even “YOUR CELL NUMBER APPEARS ON THE DISPLAY”. Do you see the differences between our two PRODUCT submissions Mike? Clearly the concept is the same, use a cell phone as a remote to activate a beeper on your keys, but the actually products we submitted are very different.
Your product was to use an “APP FOR YOUR CELL PHONE”. My product was to use an “IPHONE APP” obviously for iPhones. So where your product was intended for all phones in general, my product submission was intended specifically for iPhones. So to begin with, our cellular platforms are not the same. Your product was supposed to use a “GSM SIGNAL” so you can “CALL UP YOUR KEYS”. My product was to “SYNC WIRELESSLY”, clearly through a wireless network, to you phone so you can “ACTIVATE” the keychain using the app on your phone. You are very specific about how your product will function here Mike. You want your device to use a GSM Signal and even require a serial number in order to function. In my product submission I made no such requirements for my product to work. In fact my requirements are different then yours. Where your app will call your device using a GSM signal, my product requires the phone and keychain device be synced on a wireless network in order to communicate. My product will not be “CALLED” by my app but “ACTIVATED” and this is because of the different bandwidths we’ve chosen to use our products on. So you can see that in reality our two products function very differently Mike. Not only this but from a technical standpoint, the products you and I submitted don’t look, sound or interact the same way.
The “Keeper”, as you’ve called your product, is not the same device I describe in my submission Mike. I clearly refer to my product and show it in the photograph as a “KEYCHAIN” like device that only “RINGS LOUDLY” when activated. The device you submitted not only “BEEPS” but also “VIBRATES” and “LIGHTS UP” and even has a “DISPLAY” so people can see the number calling it. Neither of these last 3 features are on the product I submitted on quirky. I submitted a very small “NICKLE SIZED” device that’s similar to a keychain that only “RINGS LOUDLY”. You submitted a device that is somehow “ATTACHED” to your keys, but you never say if it’s a keychain or if it’s a box that your keys go into or if it’s the size of a brick, and this device has the ability to light up and vibrate and ring and there is even a display on the device somewhere. When examining our two product submissions I think its pretty easy to see that not only do our ideas not function identically, but they CLEARLY do not look, feel, or interact identically. Once again, this is because we’ve submitted two different product ideas Mike that were based on a similar concept.
I did not copy your product submission. I took an existing concept idea that was around long before your submission on quirky and I fine tuned it to my liking. Its called innovation! It is not considered plagiarism to innovate an existing invention. Plagiarism is only to copy something exactly and claim it as your own; obviously this is not what I did based on the facts explained above. In fact, the Idea you submitted looks, sounds and feels quite similar to something called the “ZOMM” http://www.zomm.com/ (notice that it rings, vibrates, and lights up just like your product idea. My product would look nothing like that because it’s a completely different device (mine is tinny, it only rings, it’s a keychain, etc.).
I hope this clears the air between you and I, Mike, and I hope this comment is also ready by my voters and the people at quirky to better understand the truth of the matter at hand. Thank you for your time all!

O and ErinK, thank you very much for your comment. It sheds light on the fact the neither I nor Mike were actually the original conjurers of this idea in the first place. So for Mike to say that I took his idea bares as much wight as me saying he took a previous quirky submission for a similar product and made it his own (this is a hypothetical not an accusation).