Xerox doesn't -- they'd be too embarrassed, and it would do too much damage to their reputation and to their business.
So what they'll do instead (as they've done before) is sell the patent off to some "Patent Assertion Entity" (a.k.a. "Troll") like they sold 5,689,64 https://www.google.com/patents/US5689642 to East Texas based Loramax LLC, who promptly filed suit against several dozen "infringers" in the notoriously "patent friendly" District Court of East Texas.
People like to sneer and dismiss Stallman as some sort of long-haired, hippy radical. But unfortunately, he keeps turning out to have been dead-on, absolutely right.
He's sort of like Marshall McLuhan, that way. Because Stallman wasn't (as McLuhan once explained his own success at "predicting the future") really attempting to predict the future, but rather was simply describing what he could see happening right in full plain view of everybody, but nobody was paying attention, nor generally cared to.
I suggest that the fine old institution of "Copyright" badly needs (in addition to much shorter monopoly grants) a specific exemption for "historical" documents, such as, for example, The Diary of Anne Frank or Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech (and the historical film of him delivering that speech, too), news coverage, and similar works. (Imagine the consequences if, for example, the Gettysburg Address had been subjected to such nonsensically anti-social controls.)
It's ridiculous that we, as a society, are willing to concede that some private individual or corporation can essentially "own the rights to" and exercise control over public experience and to the very stuff of the historical record.
This needs to stop. Really! It Needs To Stop! It's Insane... Perhaps, between this case and the MLK documents, we can begin to consider applying a little common sense over the farcical legal framework that's grown up to wall us off from direct, simple access to our own common heritage.
The advertising rate of a physical periodical is in part based on the notion of it's "recirculation" ratio -- how many people will likely end up looking at a typical copy.
So the guy that glances through the sports section of the paper that gets left on the Starbuck's table, the lady who checks out the fashion pages, the person who browse the travel section on checks their horoscope -- all are valuable, additional audience that allows the publisher to charge and justify a higher rate for his advertising space.
Heck -- if your publication is any good, this is "free advertising", not "piracy" to sue over.
After all, in our present system, advertising "pays the freight" so since I subscribe to only a few, favourite sites, I accept the adverts (the non-intrusive ones) as a legitimate "imposition" on my web-surfing experience.
However, I do use FlashBlock, and I use Ghostery. With Ghostery, I block all trackers, "analytics", "beacons, and most widgets. But if it's a site which I visit at all regularly, I make sure that ads are permitted.
But oddly enough, between FlashBlock and Ghostery, this ends up blocking the vast majority of ads -- I guess advertisers just aren't willing to show me the ads if they can't count how many times I've supposedly seen them.
That's a badly misinformed article by a marketing dweeb who -- to be kind -- appears to be misrepresenting himself as (a) a techie, (b) knowing anything about Net Neutrality
Of course, I might be wrong -- he might easily just be a cynical, lying PR shill for the big ISP corporations. Considering that he is (c) not presenting any sort of relevant arguments, but rather, merely smearing NN with utterly irrelevant, ideological "Big Gubbermint is BAD" blatherings, this is perhaps the likeliest conclusion.