On his specific example he assumes that his sequence of events (1,2,3 and 4) actually happened. Without knowledge of the IP lawyers Warner hire, which one (if any) decided on that course of action and the process that it went through. Without that information he falls foul of his own fallacy.
I think you missed this part. He readily admits he doesn't know who or what was responsible for Warner's actions.
Indeed from my experience of huge corporations (which comes from fairly regular contact) none of his (3) scenarios are particularly likely...
EDIT: (because the above was an unclear reply). my point being he is trying to say the people in that thread are probably wrong whilst offering 3 or so alternatives that are, equally, probably wrong too. Whilst he does admit he cant know what really went down that is not what he seems to suggest in the rest of the post.
My point is like PG's: he is falling foul of his own arguments :( and badly.
His example is like many of the "culprits" he ID's on here who lay out their opinions in a very specific way and then throw in a "but it could be like a, b, c of course" as a way to make out they are open to any suggestion... ;) :P