But he followed up by forming a company, developing, and shipping actual software based on these ideas. This doesn't look like mere patent trolling.
Now, compare some screenshots of Gelernter's Scopeware and Apple's CoverFlow. In this case it's obvious that Apple's implementation is a lot better, in its presentation as well as its ease of use.
There are dozens of cases where Apple took someone else's idea and improved on it, but I can't think of any good examples where the reverse happened.
I am perfectly aware of the point you're trying to make. However, that was not what the grandparent, Tyng, was talking about. He suggested that, because Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, Gelernter should've just be grateful that Apple threw its R&D prowerss at it, making it what it is now. You then replied comparing the situation to Microsoft and Google copying Apple's work, which isn't exactly the same thing.
In my personal opinion he should not be anything, Apple should be free to implement anything on their system they want (as well as everyone else) but those are not the rules of engagement. So I want to know, under the current rules of engagement, why is it flattery when the little guy gets copied, but acceptable for the big guys to enforce that they can't be copied.
This kind of mentality reinforces the little guy getting victimized and I want to understand how someone comes to such a flawed conclusion. Whether right or wrong the big guys are using patents as a tool in their arsenal, so if those are the ground rules set out by the bigger players then why should a smaller player be flattered and give up advantage to a big company that has been known to use the same tools against others? If the shoe was on the other foot Apple would not consider it flattery (especially if it was superior), they have proved that and that is my point.
I wasn't asserting that he should, Tyng was. And I don't want to get into a debate on the validity of software patents, because I'm still undecided on the matter.
Tyng stated that Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, and I don't think anyone will disagree with that. You compared the situation to Google and Microsoft copying Apple's ideas. I'm saying that isn't a fair comparison, because there is no consensus on whether Android is significantly better than iOS and whether Windows is significantly better than Mac OS.
"Apple was not grateful [for the creation of Windows and Android] so why should this guy be grateful."
I very much doubt that Apple saw the initial versions of Windows and Android as major improvements over their own OSes. Imitation can be the sincerest form of flattery, but doing it badly is simply insulting.
I think it's hard to tell what Apple would do if some company took Apple's ideas and made significant improvements to them, since I can't recall such an event ever happening. Well, maybe one: the Palm Pilot versus the Newton MessagePad. And I don't think Apple sued USRobotics over it.
I contend that it is, the suit was about software patents, not quality of reproduction, just like the cases before it. Bringing quality in is just a straw man argument and that is what I am trying to ferret out.
As for Palm, software patents did not exist until 95 in their current form, given that Palm was founded in 92. As well US Robotics existed well before that. There was no way to enforce a software patent.
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.