The article is confusing. He talks about intellectual property, copyright, and open source. He seems to confuse intellectual property and copyright (or at least, use them interchangeably), and seems think that open source and copyright are at odds. That open source licenses rely on copyright indicate this isn't the case.

Maybe I just misread the entire thing, but I honestly don't see the message he's trying to get across. It feels like their is a massive amount of context that is missing from this.