Is getting a patent worth it?

I've spent some time pondering over this, so here's my 2 cents:

1. Build your product first.

2. It's expensive. If you still believe your idea is unique[1], hire help.

3. Algorithms are not patentable. Systems and methods are.

See: http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

  If you want to patent an algorithm, you have to frame it as a
  computer system executing that algorithm. Then it's mechanical;
  phew. The default euphemism for algorithm is "system and method."
  Try a patent search for that phrase and see how many results you
  get.

4. It's a long process. See PG's footnote:

  [3] Applying for a patent is now very slow, but it might actually
  be bad if that got fixed. At the moment the time it takes to get a
  patent is conveniently just longer than the time it takes a
  startup to succeed or fail.

and this: http://paulgraham.com/startupfaq.html

  There are two kinds of patent suits:
  1. Random people suing you in the hope of getting money.
  2. Competitors suing you in order to destroy you.
  Until you're successful, you won't have to worry about the first
  type. And once you are successful, you'll inevitably have a lot of
  them to deal with, valid or not. So fatalism is the right plan for
  type 1 suits.

and the classic: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

  One way to put up barriers to entry is through patents. But
  patents may not provide much protection. Competitors commonly find
  ways to work around a patent. And if they can't, they may simply
  violate it and invite you to sue them.

5. It's a defensive gesture, more than a monetization/licensing move.

See: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/07/the-coming-software...

6. See Modista vs Like.com (http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/12/26/r-i-p-modista/) and Roy van Rijn's ordeal with Shazam's patent lawyers for the ridonkulousness (that's a word, thanks UD) of the patent system. A blogpost describing how to create Shazam in Java receieved a letter from the patent holder requesting it be taken down. The audacity of it in the author's words:

  A blogpost describing an algorithm can never be infrigement of
  intellectual property. The whole idea of a patent is to preserve
  an idea, to write down what it does and how it works for future
  generations. A patent has to be publicly available for this sole
  reason. This isn’t protecting their intellectual property, this is
  plain censorship.

Source: http://www.redcode.nl/blog/2010/07/patent-infringement/

And http://www.redcode.nl/blog/2010/11/patent-infrigement-part-2...

7. Also read the discussions on quora on whether patents are worth it:

http://www.quora.com/Software-Patents/How-important-is-paten...

And http://www.quora.com/Are-patents-valuable

8. And if you still want to go this route and hire a lawyer, ask the right questions (I've dealt with a few and have concluded that in the end, you're the best person to look out for yourself - the same goes for finances, exercise vs. hiring a personal finance manager, trainer, anything important for that matter): http://www.inventorinsights.com/Find_Patent_Trad...

I am founder of a startup that in discussions with a larger company buying us out. One of the advantages of acquiring a patent is that, a larger company values the patent exponentially more than the money and effort I have spent on getting it. My vague explanation of why it is so is that large corporations have an army of attorneys and can go after the offending party, or may have a track record of patent suits working in their favor.

Personally, getting a patent is also a value-add to my own skill set, for the next time, whenever that is.