>(I just realized: isn't this article guilty of exactly what the author thinks is wrong? That should be fun to watch.)

Well, no? You and the earlier posts missed this:

>Many other passages of equivalent similarity appear throughout the two documents. Indeed, side-by-side comparison of his 2004 document with CPBR’s 2012 version shows the texts to be virtually identical.

I meant the author of the original guide, who thinks that "using my ideas" is copyright infringement.

That statement doesn't appear in the linked article. He says that copying his ideas is plagiarism, which is something different. And in this particular case he is suing over copyright infringement.