There are many examples of what you should be worried about, you can find them here in the forums, here’s one of mine that I of course had to get out:
.
My submission, which was Under Consideration, went to final Friday eval just a few weeks ago, and came out “very close” to being chosen, was for a flexible peeler. A flexible peeler last week was under consideration, so I emailed similar@quirky.com, and got this response: “I remembered this submission of yours and will bring it up when we make our final decision of whether to move forward with the idea or not. Since the similarities are prevalent and you submitted it first, we will likely crown you the original ideator.”
.
That didn’t happen, because they were different submissions. Mine had multiple blades, the winning one has a single blade. Absolutely, they’re different. When I submitted, I was thinking the novelty of being a flexible peeler that conformed to the shape of a vegetable and you hand would be the overriding uniqueness; I also didn’t think one blade would work, as food grade steel isn’t exactly bendable. My mistake was I should have written in my submission all the possibilities of how a flexible peeler could be made. I did put down quite a few (multiple steel blades, sandpaper like material, a mitten style peeler, etc) but not one blade. From seeing what Quirky has done in the past, pick a good idea and then use the Concept round to figure out the details, my thoughts were a silicone rubber flexible peeler was the novelty, the blade details could be figured out later. Wrong! When interacting with and submitting to Quirky….be careful my friends, be careful :)

My submission:
.
.
Winning Submission:

No pimpin here

Try reading the words Jesse, this is not pimping *facepalm*

Again, that's what happens when you post your ideas on an open forum and company...my advice is think very hard before you do this, if you don't care that it never gets picked, or something similar does and you don't get influence, then post away...this is yet another HORRIBLE situation that is killing the ideators/inventors from wanting to post on quirky...I would say, go to other sites or try your hand at licensing, it's private!

I agree Andrea, that's exactly my point. I highly doubt the ideator of that won ever even saw my submission, and since they are different ideas I would have felt pretty bad if he wouldn't have won. On the same token, kinda sucks for me, but from the sound of the blog post they're going to focus on making an ergonomic grip rather than a flexible peeler. So hopefully I can get a flexible peeler made somewhere else

Well, you never know what quirky will go with. You just have try your best and hardest or cross your fingers.

Well, Quirky has to differentiate between the submissions somehow, and IMO the characteristics of the product ideas are better than something arbitrary/unrelated like a time stamp.

However, two things are needed to make that palatable:

(1) A selection system that is reliable and consistent enough that, if product idea X is not chosen, the same reasons that kept X out will mean a product idea Y with minor changes to X won't be chosen either.
(@John, For example, if the idea of flexibility keeps yours from being chosen, it will keep the other one out too.)

(2) If Y is chosen when X wasn't, then the characteristics of Y that caused the staff to choose it over X are actually included in the Quirky product.
(@John, For example, if they choose the other because it has a single blade, it will kill you if their product has sandpaper.)

Agree Clinton. I've always kind of thought picking a very specific idea is the way to go, but then you run into problems of people copying (inadvertently or on purpose) other ideas. I now think, haha of course after this, that the best way to differentiate is by the overriding "novelty" and function of the product. What makes the idea new and great? There are a lot of iPhone cases on the market, what's the main thing about your submission that makes it different? For example

This why I suggest SHAREFLUENCE. A sort of compensation for similar ideas submitted in the past. I suggested 2 reward stages.

1. all ideas similar to winning submissions

2. all ideas similar to final product.

Set aside 2-5% influence for each pool of similar products.

So in this case John and other previous flexible peelers would share 2-5% from stage 1 reward program.

And if Q does in fact make an ergo peeler then reward similar submissions to the final product with stage 2 reward.

If none fall within either category the Sharefluence gets added to other rounds.

The way I see it, this is the price Q process needs to pay for open innovation. Better to reward those that might have influenced then to definitely slight those that have.

I believe there are some others, as well. Nearly everything I see on here, sparks an idea in my head but I don't really have any ambition, in that regard. I just enjoy having fun things for my mind to do. I'm..."support". Tell me the result you want, without telling me how to do it. That's where my most FUN inventiveness is. I'm really good at it. That's why I only work for "top dogs" or those on their way to being "top dogs". They UTILIZE me rather than compete with me. i.e. they are smart enough to recognize that I love what I do and don't WANT their job. "Middle management" types will pretty much always be middle management types because they are always competing with their people, rather than utilizing their skills.

If we are going to use open innovation then we have to use a system that uses this openness as an asset. Instead the current system has everyone looking over their shoulder. Either make submissions private until they reach UC or reward ALL ideas that COULD have influenced each other with compensatory influence

Then we can build on each other without fear and change the face of invention

John can still file a provisional patent application to obtain a prior filing date for any material that's included in the final developed product in case he is slighted during the process.

@Jason,
I certainly agree that Quirky benefits if they do either one...either go to Sharefluence, where they become as general with their selection process as they are in developing the products
Or become as specific in developing the products as they are in their selection process.

Quirky would benefit from the consistency.

And I think Quirky is at a crossroads...are the rewards going to go to general ideas and "wishes"?
...Or is Quirky going to shift more toward rewarding inventors who have complete, fully designed product ideas?
(Or, my preference: inventors who come in with little more than a wish, but let the community help them develop it into a complete, fully designed product idea.)

[Insert unanswered question here]