I believe the Windows 8 certification _requires_ that the user be able to disable secure boot on x86.
Thus, the OEMs need to be named and shamed. However I am not holding my breath for richij (who also appears to be the article author) to name the OEMs.
Maybe they will. But I'm glad Linux has strategies that don't rely on that.
If an OEM is shipping Windows without a Microsoft logo/MDA contract, what possible incentive would they have for enabling Secure Boot at all?