Oh yeah... besides, the prevailing wisdom is this: execution > ideas.

Most people talk up an idea, but never do anything with it. Talk is cheap.

Copying was and is one of the most fundamental processes in human culture. You have learned to speak by copying! The "intellectual property" propaganda is a relatively new and artificial construct.

A number of prominent HNers would be all to happy if you copied their ideas, business models, or execution techniques. Many of them have blogs that are essentially, how to launch a business just like this in N easy steps. Some of them will even answer questions and coach you if you ask nicely.

That said, it is probably polite to not outright copy. For example no one likes the sites that mimic Stack Exchange's layout and even copy their content. Similarly if you copy someone's idea, market, and business model wholesale (without asking), perhaps expect some flak.

Sure, that's fine. Don't do a wholesale copy of he execution though -- you'll never win if you're always a step behind.

Google did it. Facebook did it. Then again, don't do a Facebook for dogs. Or dog-owners.

Your're right. There's too much competition in that space.

http://www.doggyspace.com/ http://mysocialpetwork.co.uk/

Yes. I'd figure out a way to give some attribution to the original creator of said idea.

Check this out. http://everythingisaremix.info

akulbe has hit a couple of important points. Just because someone thought of something, or even made a thing, doesn't mean they own the idea. If you copy their exact execution, shame on you. Otherwise, go for it. On paper, any social network is the same thing. But we don't use friendster anymore.

IF it seems appropriate to give credit to someone else for inspiration, go for it.

Just remember, the market will determine the winner. Effectively, that's really all that matters.

Say I am designing / building a database for work. If I want to clone that (and make it more generic for a wider audience). Are there problems with that?

Generally speaking, yes, that's a problem. If you're targeting a completely different audience and you use 100% new code, then you're probably fine, but the specifics really depend on your contract and the kind of people that run your company.

Depends on your contract. But usually yes.

"Copying" and "almost identical": No. Lame.

"Adapting" and "significantly different": Yes. Reasonable.

It depends on the idea and how much you copy.

But it's probably moot anyways since the chance of success are so low.

Of course that's ok.

Nothing is ever entirely new. Everything has parts of other things in it.

Forget the word "copying". Let's call it "reinventing".

Just about every technology is based on previous art.

That's what is evolution, no ?