They're hardly gonna say "Thanks for letting us know about our longstanding fundamental design flaw. We're still gonna be shipping them without a fix, coz, you know, they're working exactly as intended. At Intel, your security is important to us, and that's why we've been selling incremental performance improvements year after year, and not once using any opportunity to fix our design flaws. But it's OK, AMD suck*.
*disclaimer: our fundamental design flaw is why we're ahead of the competition."
Even though that is precisely what they'll do.
Edit:
The disclaimer is the crux of the matter really. At the time that these architecture changes came about, the trade-off between performance and security would have been one that defined the future of the industry. Maybe at the time it was considered worth it, and in hindsight it clearly was; Intel soared ahead in CPU performance, and has stayed there pretty much ever since. As has been hinted at earlier in this thread, no doubt the knowledge of this issue was there at the time, but has subsequently been lost, whether through staff turnover or whatever.
Now, it'd be nigh on impossible to convince a court to look at the industry in a proper historic context like this, so it's not likely to lead to any successful lawsuits. Intel pulled a blinder; traded security for performance, and it didn't get discovered until well after their dominance was ensured. Give whoever made that call a big fat paycheck, coz he's earned it.