But the author goes on to say:
Thus I do not support the proposal that all articles based on state-funded research must pass immediately into the public domain. But there are more modest proposals that deserve our attention.
Pending legislation in the US balances the interest of commercial publishers and the public by requiring that, a year after its publication, NIH-funded research must be available, online, in full...
I think the author muddles a number of different ideas here (OA does not imply public domain...) and does not properly understand what is the Open Access movement. But it is interesting to see this discussed in something like the FT.