The article does not have to say it. When a company does a secondary offering, that is a dilution, by definition.

Dilution by secondary offering does not require shareholder approval, up to a threshold. On the NASDAQ, the threshold is 20%. A company could, if it felt like it, dilute by 20% every single year for twenty years, and leave the original shareholders with 4% of the company.

The theory is that because the secondary offering will take place at fair market value, the cash raised will adequately compensate the existing shareholders for the dilution.

After reading through all the comments in the dilution thread I think I finally understand:

The value of a stock is determined by what people are willing to pay for it on the market, and if a company simply issues more stock, its entirely possible that the price of the stock will go up, go down, or stay the same.

This is of course only true for public companies, and in the case of private companies dilution is a completely different issue.

Ah, I see, that makes sense. I don't know what I was thinking. Of course selling stock is dilution, it's not like the company has extra stock it is holding in itself.

Lots of companies routinely dilute as a form of raising capital (to take advantage of a high valuation, or frequently out of desperation).

This is one of the most common forms of funding for young (or weak), publicly traded biotech and pharma companies.

It was very frequently done during the dotcom bubble days.

If you create more stock, you dilute the ownership of current holders. It's inherent in the concept of an offering, and very much legal.