I wonder if we'll ever see Universal relinquishing the rights to Disney. I doubt there's a dollar figure that would ever do it, but possibly the useage of some other IP would offer Universal enough incentive. At the moment though I think Disney has enough other underused IP they could develop in their parks without using Marvel.
What if they removed the Toon section in IOA and expanded the Marvel section. It should be a easy fix to convert the existing rides to a Marvel theme. They have a stage that can host a Marvel show.
Disney is skirting on the edge of the licensing deal. It is quite a feat to not be in violation. Perhaps Universal should send a cease and desist letter and state that the compromise should be a screening at IOA at no cost to Disney.
The Avengers on Disney XD did just do an episode involving the Guardians of the Galaxy both fighting Galactus...who also happens to be a villain in the Fantastic Four (also present at Marvel Island)
Does that open Disney up to violate the contract?
One interesting note - while it does appear Disney is free to create attractions based on Marvel characters at will west of the Mississippi, Disney will not be able to use the word Marvel is association with any of those attractions as long as this agreement is in force (and if you look at the Disneyland website for Innoventions, you don't see the word Marvel used even once in the listed Marvel character associated items). Also, they would not be able to create a 'Marvel' land, at least not with the word Marvel in the name. This does not apply outside the US from what I can tell (ie assuming the worldwide provisions of the contract have expired, they can do anything including the use of the word Marvel at the International parks, just not in any of the US parks).
On the note of the simulator ride in the article, I don't believe that matters for the purpose of Disney doing the Guardians of the Galaxy preview within Disney World, as that applies specifically to the section of the contract specifying the use/non-use of characters/rides in a potential retail concept that Marvel was apparently considering called The Marvel Action Universe (or similar), and would have necessarily (by the definition of the contract) be a separate entity from another theme park. That entire section of the contract (4) wouldn't apply to what may or may not happen within Disneyland, as it is specific to this retail concept.