This is probably the most interesting point in the article.
What it actually says is a great deal about the difference between Free Software and proprietary software, or more accurately, between copyleft and copyright. The latter allows/causes enormous concentration of resources (wealth) when something is very successful, whilst the former doesn't, and as such could be deemed to be a more efficient use of resources overall. (It probably doesn't benefit the world much that Larry has such a huge yacht).
It's a complex question, because _some_ concentration of resource is useful for 'getting things done' (see 'popularising digital media players' below), but when it becomes excessive it ceases to be a benefit (overall). On the other hand the super rich do sometimes get useful things done that otherwise aren't getting done (see 'deep flight' submersibles, and contributions of messrs Fosset and Branson). Is that sort of thing a sufficient benefit to justify the general inequity of the model?