Again, I am mostly familiar with events through the film. My point was that a lot of people were having similar ideas around the same time. I'm sure there were

Again, I am mostly familiar with events through the film. My point was that a lot of people were having similar ideas around the same time. I'm sure there were dozens, if not hundreds, of other aspiring CS students around the US who spent a few days dreaming about websites that would look a lot like Facebook, had they come to fruition. Having the idea of a dating website that focuses on a specific community, like Harvard, does not entitle you to exact payment from every other person who implements a dating website -- let alone Facebook, which was not primarily a dating website. If you care to debate that point in a more general sense, I'd like to know your opinion on business method patents before proceeding. The question of Zuckerberg's motive in not shutting out the Winklevoss twins as soon as he began work on the Facebook project is debatable. If you take the idea presented in the film that Zuckerberg is not primarily motivated by money, I can understand why he didn't really think about the consequences of what he was doing. By not ending their relationship immediately, he could have seen himself as keeping doors open for himself, rather than shutting them out of competition. It seems unlikely that the Winklevoss twins could have successfully created a competitor website, considering how long it had taken them to develop what they had. This is especially plausible because we're talking about undergraduates messing around in their dorm rooms here. Business takes on a different meaning. Was Facebook started because it seemed like a cool idea, or to make billions by exploiting nature? I don't know, but the former seems more likely.