I find it fascinating that the article never uses that term. It comes close to it, using "economic espionage" twice, but otherwise refers to the activity as trade-secret theft, or just "plain" theft.

Which it is, of course. But I couldn't shake the feeling that the author, and likely the editor too, have both made sure to avoid calling it industrial espionage. To me that term would have a very loaded connotation: "Company X is competing in an industry, and have inferior technology to someone else. Of course they will resort to espionage. They would be stupid and financially irresponsible not to."

Or maybe I'm just too cynical and jaded.