My unpublished research was scooped?

"Despite the unsatisfying result in this particular case, the idea-expression dichotomy is deeply essential to the functioning of scholarly publishing. Copyright terms now last for multiple generations. Preserving the exclusion of ideas from that control ensures that discourse and discovery can continue to move forward without the friction of fair use considerations, or permissions processes. The merger doctrine is also very important for research and scholarship because it ensures that, where there is a standard system or notation for specific kinds of concepts, control of the notation cannot grant control of the concepts. And even where standards are not at issue, it ensures that free exchange is maintained for ideas that can only be expressed in limited ways. Both of these concepts can be surprising for some academics. Many scholars presume that the law protects ideas, concepts, facts, and data precisely because they are so essential to scholarly discourse. Sometimes scholars perceive the nonprotection of these things to be a judgment that they are not of any value. But many scholars are very receptive to the reframing that we’ve chosen to not protect these things precisely because they are of so much value that all need access. Scholars may also be reassured by a reminder that academic norms require that authors and creators receive credit for their work regardless of its ownership status....When educating about copyright issues in scholarship, it is often worth the extra effort or time to at least introduce the idea that there are essential features of scholarship that are intentionally protected from copyright ownership."