Why do you differentiate between lawyer and law firm? Isn't a law firm just a group of lawyers?

@WesleyLong 3 guys in a basement calling themselves a "firm" will probably also not bring the same resources as an individual who's represented the best of the best.

@Dukeling - Most certainly true. I'll leave it to the poster to decide how to vet the firm.

Patents dont mean anything unless you have the money to hire a team of lawyers to enforce it. Even then 35% of patent lawsuits fail.

@solarflare - absolutely correct, but a pending patent application is a pretty good cudgel for them to use defending it.

I was given the opportunity to distribute a product that was patented by a rich family friend that big companies were in breach. As the small guy I couldn't do much since I knew they would bankrupt me trying to enforce it. I approached them they pretty much just said "we dont need your product we can already do that with our systems". Owner of the patent died while trying to fight the breach in another country and it cost him his home, his marriage and a vast amount of money. The patent is now expired, the owner dead and the big companies are still happily raking in the money.

PS: The industry was tv advertising so we're talking big money. Point is, even with a patent it comes down to who has more money.

You can certainly copyright an implementation of the algorithm, but you can't copyright an algorithm. Indeed, if your implementation is in a form forced by the algorithm, you can't copyright it.

A patent wouldn't justify issuing a takedown notice. And you can't copyright an algorithm.

@DavidSchwartz - I don't know if you've ever been in an IP fight, but generally it goes to those with the best lawyers that took the best action early on. I don't pretend to know the specifics of this case, but I do know web hosting companies don't want to fight takedown notices for the $12/year blog sites, and most will drop the sites in a heartbeat if a lawyer makes noise.

@WesleyLong Punch "Streisand effect" into your favorite search engine. Trying to prevent people from seeing something when the law is not on your side has a nasty habit of backfiring. Any lawyer who tells you that it's a good idea to send bogus threats that aren't backed up by the law is not one you should ever employ.

@DavidSchwartz - I know the Streisand effect very well. If there's a legitimate IP claim on something, hosting providers don't want anything to do with it. There's actually a large uproar right now about legitimate pages on Facebook being taken down as "potentially fake." Have you heard about it in the press at all? No hosting provider is going to go 10 rounds in federal circuit court for their $12/year customer.

@DavidSchwartz: Not only that - a patent requires publicly documenting the "invention" you're patenting (in the patent filing). It certainly does not prohibit anyone from writing about it.

@WesleyLong But there is no legitimate IP claim. A patent isn't grounds for keeping something secret. And a copyright is impossible since the company didn't author the work and an algorithm can't be copyrighted. What you're suggesting is that the OP get suckered by some law firm into filing legal actions they know aren't meritorious and risking sanctions and a huge PR blow up. You can't keep secrets that way, it doesn't work.

A patent also requires that there is no prior art. Once the IP has been published, obtaining patent (and also defending the patent if it is obtained) will be difficult.

@WesleyLong is it even possible to file for a patent on something that has already been published?

@GeoffreyBrent - It hasn't been published, it's been leaked. And yes, you can file patents even after publishing if it's your work. A former client of mine patented some pretty ridiculous stuff. It's a time consuming and expensive process, but it can be done.

@WesleyLong "leaked" and "published" aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

@GeoffreyBrent - I'm just going by what my client's IP attorney told me when they patented my work. He had a bar card, and specialized in this stuff, so I'll just take his word for it. If you believe I'm in error, so be it.

@GeoffreyBrent leaked and published in patent law are kinda exclusive because you can still file for some time as if that leak hadn't happen (short version).

@WesleyLong you can file in the US for up to 12 months after your own publication, most other jurisdictions don't allow that.

@solarflare sorry to hear that. But today there's a new resource called patent trolls who might willingly buy a patent that promises money. Same way, investors can be found for patent suits.