“Zuckerberg is outraged at the idea that he had stolen anything. The Winklevoss twins still had their idea; it’s just that they didn’t do anything with it.”

The Winklevoss twins TRIED to do something with it and tried numerous times to contact Zuckerberg. Their only mistakes were that they were too trustworthy and didn’t have their bases covered before bringing Zuckerberg into their idea, like proposing him to sign off on a voluntary agreement that they would work together on this project. If that happened, I’m sure all libertarians would have to agree that contracts like that would have to be enforced. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to make the case for or against intellectual property. But what Zuckerberg did was a dick thing to do.

“As Zuckerberg is quoted as saying, does ‘a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?’”

I don’t see how that’s a fair comparison. The twins went to him directly for help, it’s not a case of Zuckerberg owing money to everyone in the world who has ever come up with the idea of a social networking site. Now if we’re talking about whether or not the twins have a legitimate legal claim against Zuckerberg, then I’d agree with you that they don’t. I just don’t intend on praising Zuckerberg or calling him some kind of hero for hearing out what the twins had to say, then out of some kind of resentment against them purposely avoid meeting with them, and then going off and doing his own thing.

Again, I’m not talking about legal ramifications. I’m just saying that if an acquaintance and I agreed even verbally to be partners on a venture, I could not bring myself to screw him over. It’s a moral issue for me. But yeah sure, if I did, then one could argue it was his fault for underestimating my shrewdness and cunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwnTWZ1-UWY
http://charlenecroft.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/facebook-privacy-and-data-mining/

Yeah, that Zuckerberg, what a free market hero — not.

How is it that you twisted them to such an extent? It’s incredulous that you have tried to further some bizarre agenda against the current state of IP laws.

Ironically, you have unknowingly undercut yourself. Take for example this statement: “the fellow student who asked him this question has some stake in the profits of Facebook, because that exchange gave rise to a crucial feature of the website.””

You seem to use this as an example of how ridiculous our IP system can be, that someone with an idea who contributes to a project would be able to “improperly” profit from their contribution. Well the “student” in your example from the movie, is Dustin Moskovitz. Not only is he portrayed as a co-founder of Facebook in the movie (movie “fact”), but in reality he is a co-founder of the company and has profited from his contributions (real-life fact). So what was your point? Do you not think that he should be compensated?

Has it been lost on you that the reason why the US has such great free enterprise is because we have IP laws, rights/protection?

Steve Jobs certainly cared somewhat, and he’s certainly one of the great giants of entrepreneurship today. His iPad is supposed to be the next revolution in digital media. All he did was make an old pc tablet look “pretty” and “cool” with updated features. NOW everyone wants one!

Popularity and coolness may not be ideal as an end in itself, but it is a great means to a greater end, like improve the social welfare of society through free market means.

“Facebook itself issued a statement last night, breathing a sigh of relief:

We are happy that Judge Ware enforced the agreement settling our dispute with the ConnectU founders. ConnectU’s founders were represented by six lawyers and a professor at Wharton Business School when they signed the settlement agreement. The ConnectU founders understood the deal they made, and we are gratified that the court rejected their false allegations of fraud. Their challenge was simply a case of “buyer’s remorse,” as described by the Boston court earlier this month.

We were disappointed that we had to litigate the settlement, as we believed we were caught in the middle of a fee dispute between ConnectU’s founders and its former counsel. Nevertheless, we can now consider this chapter closed and wish the Winklevoss brothers the best of luck in their future endeavors”.

This seems to be a case of government intervention being positive. The lawsuit wasn’t initiated by the government, but the settlement agreed to by both parties was upheld by the court.

“We are born into this world believing that success in anything will be met with praise and acclaim. We are not often told the truth that we see in this film: success is more likely to be met by envy, hate, disparagement, put downs, and loathing, sometimes from the most unexpected sources”.

Is there a more appropriate way to deal with this reality than statutory law? There is always at least two sides to every story.

In this case Mark Zuckerberg was unethical and cannot be seen purely as a victim of others greed and envy. He agreed to code the site for the Winklevoss twins. By claiming to take the job, he effectively stopped them from starting the project with another programmer. This is a brilliant deception to stall the competition.

“…had Facebook not taken off and been a success, the Winklevoss twins would have never imagined themselves to have been victimized at all.”

Good point. But what would following that line of logic lead to? Imagine a world where entrepreneurs with ideas just sit on them. The fear of hiring programmers that could legally steal their ideas would paralyze business owners.

If you are going to pass judgment on the preferences of hundreds of millions of people whose freely chosen actions in no way affect you then you had better be able to justify it.