If the figures of merit are speed, size, energy and so on, calling something memristor or not wouldn't affect it.
Nobody really ended up with any real disadvantage for calling ReRAM 'a memristor' as nobody is using Chua's model to improve any important parameters anyway..
People are using name memristor (instead ReRAM) as it is more catchy but nobody really backs up anything on Chua's model.
I simply can't see any real problem with that.
The "memristor" represents a mathematical model formulated by Leon Chua in the 1970's. If the memristor model is a wrong mathematical model for ReRAM then its acceptance will probably hinder scientific development.
On their website they stated 3k, Tour's group
10k, and Hwang's group 100k.
So silicon dioxide is more or less similar to other metallic oxides in these terms.
HP will come there first anyway - but it is interesting to see if silicon can fight back once again.
Very nice article in IEEE Spectrum about SiOx RRAM.
But why is it important how they call their device...
Isn't only important thing what device can do?
If HP produce device to match flash or to do something useful - call it memristor, or ReRAM or whatever it is irrelevant.
I prefer memristor realist rather than "memristor denier." I initially supported HP's work on memristors until I figured out that it was mostly propaganda to support their business agenda rather than legitimate science.