I saw 'The Social Network' on opening day - something that I used to reserve for the Rings or Potter series (yes, truly nerdy). It is an excellent movie for anyone, and has special relevance to entrepreneurs, especially of the tech variety, who're sure to be doing some 'what if it were me?' noodling, though they are light years removed from the super-smart 19-year old Harvard student that Mark Zuckerberg was at the time he started Facebook.
Without getting into the fact/fiction debate - probably a foundation of fact with generous dollops of 'dramatic treatment' to make it entertaining - there were a couple of scenes which hinged on the choices made by Zuckerberg which could arguably be what made Facebook what it is today and these choices typified the kind of entrepreneur he was/is.
The first was when after agreeing to work with a couple of other students on a social network idea, Mark essentially (vastly) improved on the idea and decided to strike out on his own (with a different co-founder). What would other entrepreneurs have done here? Personally, I'd have given it the old college try (!) and spent some time to see if I could influence the others. Doing this without giving up the details would not be easy, but it is doable - it is establishing your role in the team, as well as assessing the vision of the team, before signing on. But in reality, as a founding entrepreneur, you're going to find that it is easier to go start your own venture than get folks with their own company to come around to your point of view, and this is a very understandable choice. The questionable behavior here is probably the timing, not the choice itself.
The other was pushing out the co-founder. There are many stories of friendships ruined by starting businesses together, but setting that aside, in the movie it was supposedly the difference in approaches/vision that prompted the CEO to push aside the CFO (with a little help from lawyers, VCs, advisors, etc. - probably some dramatic license being exercised there). This is a situation which in all likelihood happens more often than not as business prospects change once the company actually gets off the ground. In this case I'd spend a lot more time/effort to bring the co-founder to my way of thinking and also make it clear that we cannot afford active, unproductive dissension in the management team for long. I'd assume this would vastly increase the chances of getting us both in sync, but if not, yes, I think it is better to break off the relationship, though presumably with more grace and fairness than in the movie version.
Ultimately this about an entrepreneur who wants to stay in control of the vision and execution - Zuckerberg wants Facebook to go the way he intends it to and to do that, he made choices to ensure he has the control. It is not inherently bad or evil, neither is it automatically a good business move. This doesn't work for everyone, as some startups have imploded due to the founder's tunnel vision. It is just that Zuckerberg is that kind of entrepreneur (very much like Jobs) and everything worked amazingly well for him, because maybe he's just that smart?