Actually this is not as far fetched as it may seem. Here's a potential scenario, building on the above, HP may have entered into contracts with manufacturers for 'n' units. When they shut it down, they had only received 'm' units, where m < n. So, they would have had to cancel contracts and pay a penalty.
Here, they see a rather unusual demand and must have made some calculation that making the original 'n' units and earning good will by doing that, per the original contracts is better (even at a loss) than breaking contract and paying the penalty at a loss of goodwill.
Did anyone actually think this was far fetched? I thought this guy was being totally serious, and it is the most likely event, actually discussed in the article.
This also assumes that their calculation of what's worthwhile includes less tangible stuff, like being seen as a company that is receiving and meeting a high demand for devices and growing in device market share.
If that's the case, just make them and restock the HP web store. Don't come out and say you're doing another run out of charity to not leave their dear customers disappointed.
Here, they see a rather unusual demand and must have made some calculation that making the original 'n' units and earning good will by doing that, per the original contracts is better (even at a loss) than breaking contract and paying the penalty at a loss of goodwill.