You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you are in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible).

The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally public spaces from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply public things.

Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.