Also, I do not believe the knowledge of a specific need and the method of satisfying that need is what the startup sells. If that were the case, any big company

Also, I do not believe the knowledge of a specific need and the method of satisfying that need is what the startup sells. If that were the case, any big company could legally recreate what twitter or facebook does. Rather, I think the real value of startups is in the user affinity and traffic it experiences regularly. Google won't make twitter, because everyone already goes to twitter (this brings up an interesting point about making people feel like they have "things" on your site, which can help create a more secure user base, but that is a different point). Ad sales reflects traffic, sustainability reflects traffic, public influence reflects traffic. It all seems to break down to that, and that's what companies are betting on (or "mining") when they buy a start up. So, if a founder decides that he is interested in making a quick buck from the start, they won't work to establish a strong user affinity, or secure traffic levels, or significant public influence, and hence will be selling a low quality product. For an over rated opportunity-price, no less, because their pricing is based on the opportunity image created by older, successful, dedicated startups. This low quality atmosphere is what this writer warns against, for the benefit of buyers, sellers, and users. The markets have always secured demand for companies that create strong, stable foundations, and it was only a matter of time before the internet's companies started following the age old rules of capitalism too. So be warned, VCs and new founders alike. If you're not making a quality product, its only a matter of time before big companies figure out how to weed out the miners and it won't be as easy to make a quick buck with a low quality company.