Toward the end of the article, the several lawsuits and FTC actions are discussed. The end result of them is a disclaimer on the Intel compiler that it's not optimized for non-Intel processors and that Intel can't artificially hurt AMD performance (but it apparently has no obligation to support unique AMD optimizations either).

> (but it apparently has no obligation to support unique AMD optimizations either)

It's a bit worse than that. Intel has no obligation to support optimizations that aren't unique to AMD; they're allowed to disable SIMD extensions that AMD processors declare support for, while at the same time using all of those SIMD extensions on Intel CPUs. They just have to include the disclaimer that their compiler and libraries may be doing this.

Why is it just the compiler maker’s job to report it may (read: will) underperform on AMD and not also the program developer too? If I paid for software that performed worse on AMD because it deliberately hobbled itself (and was not informed), I’d want a refund.

It’s straight up anti-competitive, but consumers aren’t smart enough to understand that it’s a problem; A consumer just sees biased benchmarks that show Intel outperforming AMD, and then choose Intel.

> that Intel can't artificially hurt AMD performance (but it apparently has no obligation to support unique AMD optimizations either).

As far as I understand it quite the opposite, it explicitly mentions that it may not apply "optimizations that are not unique to Intel" to other processors. It wont select the optimal code path unless the CPU vendor ID is set to GenuineIntel and fall back to the worst path your compile settings include.