I can see why you guys are chafed by this, but it doesn't really bother me personally.
I'm a computer consultant, and building systems that I know can't be overclocked is actually an asset. It reduces my support cost because I don't get calls from people wanting to know why their system is unstable. It also means people who wanted an Athlon 950 machine will have to pay for it instead of overclocking my Duron 600 machine. I'm sure AMD feels the same way. And anything that hurts remarkers is fine by me. It's a purely economic decision.
On the other hand, completely locking the clock speed of their CPU's might backfire on AMD. There are many consumers who, although they never plan to overclock, base their buying decisions on the advice of a knowledgable friend. This friend, more enarmored with un-locked Intel processors, may tend to give them the incorrect impression that an Intel CPU would be better for them, even though, since they never plan to overclock, AMD clearly provides better value.
Now that I think about it, I really do think this is a bad tactic on AMD's part. It will probably alienate part of the computer enthusiast community whose opinions are so instrumental in the decisions of certain consumers. Then again, large OEM's will be happy that they do not have to deal with overclocking customers.
A more elegant solution would be to encode each chip with its "stock" multiplier in a similar manner to Intel's locking scheme. This stock multiplier could be read by the BIOS to report the intended speed of the CPU and immediately warn the user on POST that his system is running in an unsupported, overclocked environment.
It's too bad the EV6 bus is so stingy, or else AMD could just lock the multiplier ala Intel, and let us have our fun at 150 MHz FSB
Modus