The problem with that stand is that the author in question own their characters in Europe! Uderzo owns Asterix. Tintin was owned by Hergé until his death in the mid eighties, and since that, no one has written or drawn Tintin.
The point was, that Moore has argued that at the time it was unforeseeable that traded/hardcover collections of comics could remain in print for a period of 5 years, when in fact it was quite commonplace in other parts of the world, including some collections available in North America.
Was DC already doing reprints in TPB form around the time of Watchmen? IIRC, Marvel and DC were just starting to get into reprinting materials in TPB collections (as opposed to using reprint-specific comic book series, tabloid edition reprints, digest-sized reprints, annuals, etc.), and the very success of Watchmen helped prove the marketability of trades. Sorry to be tangential, but I'm curious about the situation because I don't remember the state of the industry at that time very well.
The criteria just keeps changing. Moore & Gibbons would get the rights back, one year after DC stops publishing it. Nothing was written about TPBs.
TPBs are being used as a misdirection by posters who can't prove that DC screwed Moore.
My point was, DC had a history of reprinting classic comics. So this idea that Moore was expecting Watchmen back after a year or two is just nonsense.
Other than picking at the low-hanging fruit that is Lucas saying the BEFORE WATCHMEN project is BETTER because Alan Moore doesn't want it to happen, I really don't think there's anything great about the article. David Brothers is a very good and intelligent writer, but he hits many of the same pitfalls (read: mistakes and factual errors) that others stumble upon all while putting on a bit of the "cool kid" routine in announcing he never much liked Watchmen to begin with.