Good day everyone … and thank you for joining us. For the past few years, we have been very open in outlining the major steps for AMD’s transformation into a processing powerhouse:

• From the acquisition of ATI Technologies;
• To the formation of GLOBALFOUNDRIES; and
• The creation of AMD-The Product Company,
  o with a single business unit,
  o a reinvigorated roadmap,
  o a new business model,
  o And a close relationship with a world-class leading-
  edge foundry.

Today, I am pleased to announce the last major component of that transformation–in the form of a transparent and public agreement with Intel to create a level playing field in the x86 processor industry–taking us one big step closer to achieving our bold vision.
There are three key components to the agreement:

• First, Intel has agreed to an important set of ground rules that we hope will define the path to a free and open market in the microprocessor industry;
• Second, we have agreed to a new patent cross-license agreement that gives AMD broad rights and the freedom to operate a business utilizing multiple foundries,
• And third, GLOBALFOUNDRIES has agreed to terms that allow them the freedom to operate as an independent world-class leading-edge foundry company, going forward, without being a subsidiary of AMD.

In addition, Intel has agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion.

Today marks the beginning of a new era… one that confirms that the game has changed for AMD. It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most important–for consumers and businesses worldwide. In addition, it represents the culmination many years of litigation and regulatory engagement.

And we are optimistic that it will usher a new era for our industry. We recognize that it will take time for people to understand how operating conditions in the processor business have changed–but make no mistake–they have changed.

I would like to thank the regulatory agencies around the world for their diligence and consistency. Their work has enabled us to achieve this milestone. We are optimistic they will continue their vigilance in maintaining a level playing field, especially with respect to exclusionary practices in our industry.

Looking forward to three keys to our continued success: Compelling offerings; Access to customers and channels, And a winning business model.

We are optimistic this agreement addresses concerns about customer and channel access and our business model. We look forward to healthy competition with the mutual respect one would expect between world-class competitors.

Under terms of the agreement, Intel (INTC) will pay AMD (AMD) $1.25 billion (nearly a quarter of AMD’s $4.46 billion market cap) and agree to “abide by a set of business practice provisions” presumably crafted to temper Intel’s allegedly anticompetitive practices. Here are details of the agreement:

Business Practices Provisions Prohibit Intel From:

• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to buy all of their microprocessor needs from Intel, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.1.a)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit or delay their purchase of microprocessors from AMD, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.1.b)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit their engagement with AMD or their promotion or distribution of products containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, channel, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.2a-b)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to abstain from or delay their participation in AMD product launches, announcements, advertising, or other promotional activities (Section 2.1.2.b)
• Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.2.2 and 2.1.2)
• Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.2.1)
• Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.

In return, AMD will drop all its pending litigation against the company and pull out of regulatory complaints worldwide. Finally, the two rivals will enter into a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement.

In a joint statement, the companies said, “While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”

Interesting. Clearly, AMD CEO Dirk Meyer’s earlier comments about the ratification of its complaints about Intel’s business practices and the company’s hope for a future in which AMD’s “ability to succeed as a business is really determined by the quality of our products and customer relationships” was quite prefigurative.

During a call to discuss the settlement, Meyer said the accord marks the beginning of a new era, one that changes the game for AMD. “It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most importantly–for consumers and businesses worldwide,” Meyer said.

“It is the culmination years of litigation and regulatory engagement, and we are optimistic that it will usher a new era for our industry,” the CEO continued, further noting that change may not be immediate. “We recognize that it will take time for people to understand how the operating conditions in processor business have changed–but make no mistake–they have changed….We look forward to healthy competition with the mutual respect one would expect between world-class competitors.”

It is unclear if the settlement will affect the antitrust suit brought against Intel by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last week as Cuomo hasn’t yet commented. But the European Union says it will not change its decision in May to fine Intel a record $1.5 billion for anticompetitive behavior.

“The European Commission takes note that Intel and AMD have settled all their litigation and that Intel is paying AMD compensation of one-and-quarter billion dollars,” said an EC spokesman. “But Intel has an ongoing obligation to comply with the commission’s antitrust decision and with EU competition law. The commission continues to vigorously monitor Intel’s compliance with its obligations under the EU antitrust decision.”

“Integral to this agreement is a commitment by the companies to devote substantial resources to accelerate delivery of leading-edge innovation that will put unique applications in the hands of consumers quickly,” the companies said in a joint release. “The two industry leaders will create, market and distribute products and services, with Verizon Wireless also contributing the breadth of its nationwide distribution channels. Consumers will be able to purchase products resulting from the collaboration in Verizon Wireless retail and online stores.”

The first new phones are expected at market within weeks. Two will be released before the end of the year and they will, according to Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam, support Google Voice. They’ll also come with Google’s (GOOG) Android Market preinstalled. So Verizon (VZ) is not favoring its own app store here. There will apparently be netbooks as well, though the companies haven’t yet said when.

During a conference call to discuss the announcement, Google CEO Eric Schmidt applauded Verizon’s “openness,” saying it was “frankly, enormously surprising, given the history and the old-line nature of telcos….In Verizon, somehow, the leadership has decided to embrace a very different philosophy, which works very, very well with the Internet.” Schmidt didn’t go into specifics beyond that, but presumably he was referring to Verizon’s willingness to allow Google Voice on its phones–something Apple (AAPL) hasn’t yet done with the iPhone despite continuing controversy.

Asked during the same call if Verizon would allow Google Voice, Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam said it would. “Either you have an open device or not,” he said. “This will be open.”

The deal is potentially a big one for Google. Verizon serves some 87 million customers. Putting some slick Android phones in front of them could do much to bolster Google’s standing in the wireless market.

“It is because the parties wish to work with the DOJ to the fullest extent possible that they have engaged, and plan to continue to engage, in negotiations,” the groups wrote in their request to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin. “Nevertheless, it is clear that the complex issues raised…preclude submission of an amended agreement by Oct. 7.” And with that they asked if they could return to the court Nov. 6 with a revised settlement and a new timeline for hearings.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, the opposition is already crowing over it. “This is a huge victory for the many people and organizations who raised significant concerns that this settlement did not serve the public interest, stifled innovation, and restricted competition,” the Open Book Alliance, an ad hoc group led by some of Google’s largest rivals, said in a post to its blog. “It’s also an enormous loss for Google, which had been saying for months that no changes were necessary to the settlement. Now, that settlement, as we know it, is dead.”

“Speculation is rife that Apple will end its exclusive U.S. iPhone service deal with AT&T when the current contract expires in June 2010 and begin to offer phones that work with the Verizon network,” iSuppli analyst Francis Sideco said in a research note today. “However, iSuppli doesn’t believe this will be the case. The main reason Apple is likely to stick with AT&T beyond 2010 is the relatively wide usage and growth expected for the HSPA air standard used by the carrier for 3G data.”

As Sideco explains, “Cumulative global subscribers of HSPA wireless services, consisting of High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) and High-Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA), are set to rise to 1.4 billion in 2012, up from 269.1 million in 2009. In contrast, cumulative subscribers for the EVDO standard used by Verizon will amount to 304.6 million in 2013, up from 145.2 million in 2009.”

A point worth noting, though it’s hard to imagine that Apple (AAPL) doesn’t harbor some resentment toward AT&T (T), which has undermined its carefully crafted iPhone experience. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it make more sense for the company to extend its deal with AT&T, but not as an exclusive? That would allow Apple to hammer out a second deal with Verizon (VZ), which, according to some analysts, would more than double U.S. iPhone sales in the near term.

As Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi noted this summer, “Verizon’s postpaid subscriber base is not only larger than AT&T’s, but more importantly, is untapped whereas we estimate more than 10 percent of AT&T’s postpaid users already have an iPhone.”

That said, it’s also entirely possible that there will be no official announcement tomorrow. After all, we’ve been hearing reports like those above about the Apple (AAPL) iPhone in China for quite a while now and these negotiations are quite complex. As Dan Butterfield at iPhonAsia notes, “I am skeptical that an Apple/China Unicom iPhone deal announcement will come on Friday as there are likely two iPhones in the approval pipeline–models A1324 and A1325. The WiFi enabled model (A1325) may still be in CTTL testing and Apple may not want to make a deal official until both iPhones have received their network access licenses, which could take another month or so.”

This morning, a report in Shanghai Securities News claimed the two companies had reached an agreement that grants China Unicom three years of exclusivity. The terms are said to call for the carrier to purchase iPhones from Apple for 3,000 yuan ($439) each and guarantee annual sales of one million to two million units and at least five billion yuan ($732 million) in annual revenue.

At present, there is no revenue-sharing agreement. That had become a sticking point in negotiations and Apple (AAPL) seems to have foregone it in order to finalize the deal.

But has an overall agreement really been reached? As I noted earlier, state-run media claim it has. China Unicom, however, says otherwise.

“We have made progress but there are still some problems to be resolved,” a Unicom spokesperson told AFP. “Both sides have their own timeframe for an agreement but essentially it depends on the practical progress of the negotiations.”

That said, it seems clear that an agreement will be reached. Certainly, China Unicom would be foolish to balk at this point. To win the right to be the sole supplier of the iPhone in the world’s largest mobile market for three years would go a long way toward bolstering Unicom’s weak performance and make it easier for it to compete against rivals China Mobile and China Telecom.

So says Pali Research, which in a research note this week argued that AT&T (T) should be very worried about the prospect of Verizon adding the iPhone to its handset lineup.

“As the iPhone exclusivity period rolls off between AT&T Wireless and Apple, a material number of AT&T customers will flock to Verizon’s superior network,” the firm states. “We estimate that nearly a third of AT&T’s post-paid customers are being retained by AT&T primarily because of the iPhone exclusivity.”

An unsettling thought for AT&T, whose five-year agreement to be the iPhone’s sole U.S. provider is reportedly set to expire in 2010. Especially since there are several compelling reasons for Apple to offer the iPhone to Verizon (VZ).

For one thing, the move would give Apple access to about 80 million new Verizon customers. For another, it would bring the iconic device to a carrier that might, you know, reasonably support all its features, a carrier whose LTE “4G” network isn’t four-to-five years off, a carrier whose name doesn’t elicit laughter and jeers at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference.

So why extend AT&T’s exclusive deal? If there’s a good reason, Pali doesn’t see it. The research house is betting on the iPhone coming to Verizon. And when it does…

“We expect AT&T Wireless net subscriber additions to fall to less than 1 million in 2010 from more than 4 million in 2008. With an LTE-based iPhone in 2011, we believe Verizon could take even more market share resulting in a contraction in AT&T’s subscriber base in that year.”

Which is exactly what Data Domain did.

One consolation: NetApp (NTAP) may have failed as a suitor, but it received a $57 million breakup fee from Data Domain (DDUP) as a result of the termination of the agreement.

Still, it’s a tough blow for NetApp (NTAP), which will now focus on “existing growth opportunities” instead of ill-starred bidding wars with rivals.

Said Dan Warmenhoven, NetApp’s chairman and CEO: “While NetApp’s acquisition of Data Domain would have produced benefits for customers and employees and complemented NetApp’s existing growth trajectory, we remain highly confident in our already compelling strategic plan, market opportunities, and competitive strengths.”

“NetApp applies a disciplined approach to acquisitions, one focused intently on creating long-term value for our stockholders.” Warmerhoven added. “We therefore cannot justify engaging in an increasingly expensive and dilutive bidding war that would diminish the deal’s strategic and financial benefits. NetApp has established leadership positions in virtualized infrastructure, storage efficiency, and unified storage, even in these difficult economic times, by helping customers meet their business objectives with less physical storage while reducing costs. That commitment will not change. We look forward to continuing to build on our foundation of innovation and customer service, and to continuing to execute our successful growth strategy.”

[Image credit: despair.com]

This morning, EMC raised its offer for Data Domain to $2.1 billion from $1.8 billion, an 11 percent increase over its previous all-cash bid. Data Domain’s board had previously recommended that shareholders reject EMC’s $30-a-share cash bid in favor of a $30 cash-and-stock offer from NetApp (NTAP).

Hard to see the board doing so again now that the EMC (EMC) has sweetened the financial end of its proposal and removed some deal-protection provisions with which Data Domain (DDUP) had taken issue. With those gone, EMC’s bid is clearly superior to NetApp’s, CEO Joe Tucci claims, and it would be hard to argue otherwise.

“Over the past several weeks we’ve received strong support from many Data Domain stockholders and customers, validating our belief that EMC is Data Domain’s best choice,” Tucci wrote in a letter to Data Domain’s leadership. “With regulatory requirements now fulfilled, and in light of the clearly superior proposal we submitted to Data Domain’s Board of Directors today, we expect Data Domain to sign our definitive agreement that will deliver superior value in cash to the Data Domain stockholders in as little as two weeks.”

Data Domain has until midnight on July 17 to accept the offer.

UPDATE: NetApp responded to EMC’s announcement with the following statement:

“In response to EMC’s revised, unsolicited offer, the NetApp Board of Directors will carefully weigh its options, keeping in mind both its fiduciary duty to its stockholders and its disciplined acquisition strategy. We will provide an update shortly.”

On Monday the company once again said its bid for the data storage equipment maker Data Domain is “superior” to a competing offer from NetApp. This, despite the fact that Data Domain earlier in the day issued a statement recommending that shareholders reject EMC’s $30-a-share cash bid and instead accept a $30 cash-and-stock offer from NetApp.

“Our Board is committed to enhancing stockholder value and, after careful review with our outside advisors, determined that the $30 per share EMC Offer is not in the best interests of our stockholders at this time,” said Frank Slootman, president and CEO of Data Domain.

Why not? Well, among other things Data Domain hasn’t been able to discuss EMC’s offer because EMC hasn’t yet accepted the confidentiality and standstill agreement that would allow it to do so. For another, Data Domain must pay a $57 million termination fee if it should abandon its deal with NetApp–and that’s on top of a host of other considerable transaction expenses.

That’s understandable, I suppose. Still, it’s difficult to see why Data Domain insists that EMC’s all-cash offer is worth less than NetApp’s cash-and-paper bid. Unless it’s doing so to force EMC’s hand deeper into its wallet. And, indeed, that may be exactly what’s happening here. Sources say. EMC (EMC) could raise its offer to as much as $35 per share to win Data Domain (DDUP) or force NetApp (NTAP) to pay more than it can afford for it. “EMC is in the win-win box and NetApp is in the lose-lose box,” a source close to the company told Reuters. “EMC can pay more than NetApp can in a reasonable range. If NetApp wants to pay at an unreasonable range, that’s good for EMC.”

Amazon (AMZN) hasn’t yet commented on the settlement beyond the filing, which offers little more information than that it was “unanticipated” and will be charged to “other operating expense” in the second quarter.

Sources briefed on the matter say DOJ attorneys have contacted Google (GOOG) as well as the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild about the antitrust implications of the agreement. Presumably at issue here are concerns over the settlement’s opt-out terms–authors and publishers who don’t opt out have effectively opted in–and the fate of orphan works, books still in copyright but whose copyright owners are unknown.

Orphan works number in the millions and the fear is that this settlement gives Google a powerful blanket license for them. As Pamela Samuelson, director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, recently noted:

An estimated 70 per cent of the books in the Book Search repository are in-copyright, but out of print. Most of them are, for all practical purposes, “orphan works,” that is, works for which it is virtually impossible to locate the appropriate rights holders to ask for permission to digitize them….The proposed settlement agreement would give Google a monopoly on the largest digital library of books in the world….Google will also be the only service lawfully able to sell orphan books and monetize them through subscriptions….Virtually the only way that Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo!, or the Open Content Alliance could get a comparably broad license as the settlement would give Google would be by starting its own project to scan books. The scanner might then be sued for copyright infringement, as Google was. It would be very costly and very risky to litigate a fair use claim to final judgment given how high copyright damages can be (up to $150,000 per infringed work). Chances are also slim that the plaintiffs in such a lawsuit would be willing or able to settle on equivalent or even similar terms.

Samuelson concludes that the Book Search agreement as written is essentially a major restructuring of the book industry and an anticompetitive one at that. If that is indeed the case–and Google maintains that it is not–it’s worrisome indeed. Certainly, it’s reason enough for the DOJ to give the agreement a good once-over.