As I type this from a laptop running a LEGAL, and REGISTERED copy of Windows XP, I can tell you that whichever company makes a chip WITHOUT this "technology", is the chip I will be buying. If both of the major players do it, I will buy the fastest non-lojacked chip possible and live with it for as long as I can. Why, do you ask, would someone who pays for their software feel this way? Several reasons.
1. If the chips can be used to invasively stop piracy, what else can they be used for? Think about that. I saw a reference to protecting people from "hackers" in one of the articles (whatever that means). Is your computer going to start making pre-programmed JUDGMENTS about the code that is written on it, and then "call home to mama" if it finds something that it finds to be "suspicious"? What's next? Is my TV going to start reporting back when I watch certain patters of "suspicious" programming? Is my oven going to start calling someone if I don't eat all of my red meat "well done" to avoid the risk of e-coli as a good citizen should, for public health reasons? (ok, granted, a ridicuous example, but just where DO you draw that line?)
2. If you wish to engage in a LEGAL activity that involves copying or ripping something. An example of this would be copying songs from a CD you paid for onto another CD to use in your MP3 player, so you can get more than 12 songs on a disc. Another example of this would be backing up an expensive piece of software that you paid for, in case your original gets all scratched up since the software annoyingly requires you to put the original CD in your computer every month when you download the update, in a misguided attempt to stop piracy *cough*mcafee*cough*). Of course, if you choose to DEFEAT this technology (and there usually turns out to be a way if you are determined enough), that would likely fall under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (don't get me started on that one), making you a criminal for trying to rip the CD you bought onto your MP3 player.
3. If my chip has software in it (i.e. hardwired, not software that I loaded), can I really trust my computer enough to use it to generate communications that are subject to privilege? (applies to doctors, lawyers, etc.).
4. The fourth reason comes down to a matter of principle. Your hardware is YOURS, not THEIRS. It is not the job of your computer to make sure you play nice. That is why we have civil courts, law enforcement agencies to enforce laws, etc. Depending on what these chips actually DO (not too much info forthcoming out there), there may also be serious privacy and 4th amendment issues involved.
Another DUMB idea, from the "goodie two-shoes" special interest people (and their like) who brought you such wonderful things as mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, laws that allow police to stop people ONLY for not wearing a seat belt, those super duper "zero tolerance" drunk driving laws that allow people in certain age groups who have had a swig of cough syrup to get convicted of a DUI (and consequently have their lives ruined) with a blood alcohol level of as little as .02 (no, I have not had that pleasure, I just don't like that law), and lets not forget the 3-strikes your out laws that give petty thieves that rob vending machines life sentences without parole for stealing three consecutive kit-kats, while rapists and murderers in the same states do 5 to 10, years of PROBATION.
Don't get me wrong, I do NOT hate the system. It is the best system out there. Laws are important, as is enforcement. In fact, I work in that system. I just can't stand it when special interests who have only their own interests in mind, find ways to impose their will on the rest of us, without us even getting a vote on it. At least some of the other Cluster Fs mentioned above were legislative acts, and those that passed them were and are subject to a vote. When companies capituate to a special interest like this WITHOUT a legislative mandate (and the accountability that carries), it just irritates me in particular, as there really is no practical way for the consumer to voice his opinion.
Nack