Implementation, partnerships, marketing (visibility), and growth are all just as important as being first. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings in academia, where the ultimate goal is simply to be published first and recognized most.
Also, one might say Bricklin et al did get the academic reward of being recognized as first; but that ethically, whoever helps people most deserves the greater reward (through implementation that meets their needs; word of mouth that reaches them; ease of adoption; 3rd party support; constant improvement etc).
This probably feels like the ethically correct outcome when you've invented something interesting, however it runs counter to free market economics. Being first can provide a competitive edge but it isn't the only factor.
When you invent something really useful that's never existed before... don't you deserve something awesome in return? But I guess they did make some serious money; and consumers benefited from the better implementations (which is why they switched). Ownership would have prevented this particular progress.
I still feel bad for them though.