Say what? I'd rather have a hacker, that created something reap its benefits, rather than some "idea bros".

Winklevosses were just a couple of deuchebags with an idea. Go to any Techcrunch/tech party in NYC, and you will meet plenty of them. They go nowhere, because they don't have the hard skills to make something a reality.

Ideas, are cheap. Given some beer, and one hour of time, anybody can come up with a dozen of decent ones. Execution on the other hand is hard. It takes sweat and real work to make something happen.

So you are ok with contracting to do some work for someone, but instead of delivering the product that was asked for, you delay your client's work, and then release a similar product of your own, taking the market away from them? You think it's okay to do that because you (after the fact) consider your client to be a "douchebag"? Do you think that your ethical failings are somehow negated because you are a hacker, or because you meet "people like them" at some tech party? After all, according to you, they weren't going anywhere anyway? I wonder if you would say all of that if it was you sitting with a fraction of Zuckerberg's $40 billion. Would you say, "Well he deserved it because he was a hacker and I was just an idea guy. Oh man, ideas are cheap." Seriously, W.T.F.

It's not a matter of the Winklevosses being "douchebags", or even "just coming up with an idea", which is false anyway as they had already developed the code and wanted Zuckerberg to finish it. They trusted Zuckerberg to deliver a product. Instead he held them back, while making his own version of their work. He screwed them over plain and simple.

Are you basing this argument off of the movie? It is well know to have many known inaccuracies. Where is the source of all these details.

I made a newsline of the events. The key is the IM messages, which were released after the movie. http://newslines.org/mark-zuckerberg/?order=ASC