"Marketing department" -- We are sick of seeing the world complain that our patches to these problems reduce performance by X percent. Hey "Legal Dept", can anything be done about that?
"Legal Dept" -- We will see what we can do...
Result, a new clause appears in the license file that says "no bench-marking".
With no one in the path ever having heard of the Streisand effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) (yes, Streisand effect is not a perfect fit here, but the 'publicity' part of the effect is what in fact has occurred).
I believe intel does distribute test/beta microcode to certain partners, and likely security researchers, this kind of statement is something you would put in a beta version, I wonder if someone simply used the wrong license file when they deployed this to the website.
https://twitter.com/RyanSmithAT/status/1032546813176307712
and if it was true they would have said so in their reply.
I don't see how this changes anything at all.
Obviously not good if it makes it into the public release.
If they contract testing of the beta to a 3rd party, they don't want them running benchmarks because if they get released, news organizations will jump on it, broadcasting the performance hit.
This matters because when later beta versions improve performance, the news about the improved performance doesn't spread nearly as much. Even if it does, the first impression sticks, and there's nothing Intel will be able to do about it.
Such EULA clauses need to be put to the test and overturned for the anti-consumer monopolistic garbage they are.