Unfortunately in this case, ASICBOOST is both patented, and adds a fair bit of complexity to mining hardware. Both these problems have the undesirable effect of increasing the barriers to entry for new asic manufacturers - an undesirable thing from the point of view of Bitcoin users.
You're quite correct that shortcuts are irrelevant, but the reality of manufacturing makes the playing field a lot less level than we'd like.
Exactly, I'd go further and say that if a particular technique is patented and cannot be matched by a related technique, giving a permanent unfair advantage, it is up to the community to change the proof of work and work around the advantage imposed by a state monopoly.
Then Bitcoin has to hard fork every time someone comes up with a new patentable idea. I don't see why people think mining must be fair. It only has to not become completely centralized.
Someone who can control the majority of the hashrate can enforce a transaction whitelist. Bitcoin's independence from the state requires the world superpowers are not able to control a majority of the hashrate.
But if one miner has a significant advantage for a long enough time then mining will become unprofitable for everyone else, ultimately leading to nearly complete centralization.
People forget that profits can be reinvested. If one miner has 10% extra profits, they will have 10% extra hashrate growth. This leads to effective monopoly.
Not only that, Bitmain (the miner implied to be using ASICBOOST covertly) copied the American patent and submitted it to the Chinese patent system. It's not yet granted, though.
Unfortunately in this case, ASICBOOST is both patented, and adds a fair bit of complexity to mining hardware. Both these problems have the undesirable effect of increasing the barriers to entry for new asic manufacturers - an undesirable thing from the point of view of Bitcoin users.
You're quite correct that shortcuts are irrelevant, but the reality of manufacturing makes the playing field a lot less level than we'd like.