Very interesting. This is the first time I've heard this. I always assumed shorter was better, since there would be less chance of signal loss. I have a few 1-foot HDMI cables from Monoprice, but I'm not currently using any of them. It's good to know that I should avoid them in the future.
Not the right thread for this, so I'll keep it short (ahem). The HDMI chips at each end attempt to correct the expected signal degradation along the length of the cable. To do so, they have to make certain assumptions about what's going on in the cable. Those assumptions are geared towards making LONGER cables work better, and are incorrect for 1 foot cables. The upshot is that short cables can give problems much like cables that are too long. Whether you WILL have problems depends on lots of stuff -- the particular chips at each end, and the nature of the video/audio you are sending over the cable for starts. Shorty "port saver" cables are intended to be daisy-chained with a normal length cable to relieve stress on the port (as from heavy cables).