I don't agree with this article much at all. You basically just took a good logo, and a bad logo (mostly because it doesn't have anything solid to relate to, and you really don't know what it is saying) and make up ways in which one is better than the other. AND then you don't even explain why one works and one doesn't...

Designing a logo is not the same for every company. It's all different, for different situations - therefore there isn't a real text book way to define the logo making process.

Even some of the things you used to back up the brook trout logo contradict themselves. The company "Brooktrout" has nothing to do with fish or fishing (as you mentioned), it's a technology company. http://www.brooktrout.com/

Just my .02 . . .