OK, this paper is bunk for many reasons.

First: Moore's law is just exponential growth (with a doubling time t). Drop the Moore's Law terminology from the paper.

Second: C-value paradox isn't. It's based on false assumptions. Given there are frogs and trees with genomes 100X the size of their nearest species neighbors (this is likely due to some completely boring mistakes), and that data is just copies and copies of the same DNA over (inlcuding duplications of genes, duplication of regulatory regions, and duplications of hanger-on DNA. Calling it an enigma (in the cited paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216716) is a bit better, because if we understood how genomes can tolerate this sort of expansion it owuld be great.

In short: the authors recognize some of the important problems, but go off in the wrong direction with it.