I didn't, and wouldn't, use the words 'patent troll' for this case. My concern is more subtle.
Let's say I've got a novel idea right now of a wondrous invention, the Thneed. I'm the first in the world to conceive and refine the idea to implementability.
But, like everything else, it has precursors and dependencies, and will only be a hit if introduced at the right time. And, in our giant economy with lots of smart people, I was lucky to put the pieces together first.
If I were hit by a bus on the way to the patent office, two other people will come up with essentially the same Thneed idea next month. And if they meet each other, conspire to control the market, but then die from sharing a spoiled toxic Zagnut -- well, in two more months, four other people will independently arrive at the same idea. And by this time next year, hundreds will have independently realized it.
Further, the idea while wonderful may still, for hard-to-understand reasons, not be able to support a business for another 10 years. The infrastructure isn't there; the consumers need education; a critical mass of complementary products aren't yet available in enough places for economic production at scale. So my early conception isn't a boon to society, but only -- via either my speculation skills or a patent-granted monopoly -- a boon to me. By the time society needed my invention, it'd be 'obvious' to thousands of people.
Why grant patents in such a situation? They're not accelerating progress; they're arbitrarily reassigning the benefits of progress to a few lucky people. Patents may be retarding progress by encouraging overinvestment in prediction and speculative patent filing.
If these situations are rare, and situations where the patent incented a necessary invention are common, then patents are still net-worthwhile. But if these 'assign profits a little early' situations dominate, then even if patents sometimes incent valuable inventions, then patents are a net-loss.
With Gelernter, I haven't read his patents -- as engineers wiser than me have suggested that for software, lay coders reading patents can only get you in trouble. But I have read Gelernter's other writings -- essays and op-eds and book excerpts -- as he's a tenured professor. And the tone of those is: "here are my predictions". Or "this is right and inevitable". Even if his patents are intelligent refinements on what he saw as inevitable, that makes me think his inventive claims fall into the 'prescient but not economically necessary' category. It's wasteful for society to grant patent bonanzas for that level of insight. Those insights deserve accolades and tenure and investment-to-productize and consulting fees, but not a legal monopoly.