The biggest fallacy in this way of thinking is the notion that your idea is "original" in the first place. Maybe you're the first to market, but that doesn't mean there weren't 10 guys a month behind you, and it doesn't mean that your idea and execution can't be improved upon.

While it's easy to list unoriginal innovators (Ford, Edison, Eastman, Jobs, Gates) I can't name anyone that's had a truly original idea that no one else soon before or after thought of. That's because our ideas are improvements upon current technology. DaVinci didn't imagine things like the Apple I because electricity hadn't been harnessed. All of the great innovators we talk about didn't invent the entire world around them, they just took an idea and added their own "claim to fame" to it.

It seems to me that chances are your idea won't be even remotely original, but more likely it's just now technically feasible to build. I'm sick of hearing about software patents "stifling innovation" then seeing people act as if there isn't enough protection of intellectual property.