Seems that Oracle has decided that perhaps petulantly refusing to cooperate with the European Commission’s antitrust probe isn’t the best course of action here and has asked for “the opportunity to further develop its arguments in relation to the commission’s concerns.” Presumably, the company wouldn’t need such time if the EC’s objections were as baseless as it has argued. The standoff between the two, then, would appear to be over and we may see a solution to the matter early next year.

• Orphan works–books whose copyright holders are unknown–will be overseen by an independent trustee who will administer their licensing, not by Google.
• Books published outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia will be excluded from the settlement.

Those are substantive alterations, but they clearly haven’t placated critics who accuse Google (GOOG) of attempting an “end-run around copyright law as we know it.”

The Open Book Alliance–a coalition whose members include the Internet Archive, Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO)–has blasted the revision twice already, decrying it as “a sleight of hand” intended to distract people from Google’s continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution.

“The proposed changes fail to address this deal’s fundamental flaws,” Open Book Alliance Co-Chair Gary Reback said in a vitriolic statement. “Despite Google’s effort to spin this deal, it does nothing to promote competition nor does it reform Google’s exclusive access and monopoly hold on this digital database of books. Their proposed ‘unclaimed works fiduciary’ will have zero authority to promote competition or expand access. It is a cynical diversion away from the parties’ continued reliance on the discredited argument that competitors can obtain access through the very means Google did–getting sued for copyright infringement and abusing the class action process. This deal remains rife with anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

“Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works,” Alsup wrote in his ruling (see full text below). Not only did the company infringe on Apple’s (AAPL) copyrights by installing Mac OS X on its hackintoshes, he explained, it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to do so.

An ugly defeat for Psystar, which just a few weeks ago asked a judge to bless its business and rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple’s Mac OS X pre-installed. Still, it doesn’t mean that the acrimonious legal battle between the two companies is finished. Psystar could appeal, though Alsup’s ruling would seem to leave the company pretty far up that certain creek it’s been traveling lately–without a paddle.

There remain a number of accusations to be decided at trial, among them, Apple’s claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. Beyond these, there are the damages that will almost certainly be brought against Psystar on the copyright issues in the case.

“The court asked for briefs on that subject,” Pamela Jones notes over at Groklaw. “In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar’s only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn’t bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.”

Psystar –

“We’re extremely pleased to have Doug join the Intel team,” said Intel CEO Paul Otellini. “His breadth of experience and legal expertise combined with his background in government are an outstanding fit for us.”

Melamed’s appointment must be quite a relief for Otellini and Intel, which, as I’ve noted here before, is grappling with some of the most important legal issues the company has ever faced.

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.”

In remarks made during AMD Financial Analyst Day, CEO Dirk Meyer said that Intel’s (INTC) current legal woes “ratify” AMD’s (AMD) allegations.

“We’ve said for a long time that our success in the marketplace was hampered by anticompetitive behavior on the part of Intel,” Meyer said. “And over the last 12 months that we’ve seen our statements ratified by regulators around the world….I’m looking forward to a future in which our ability to succeed as a business is really determined by the quality of our products and customer relationships. And I can tell you that hasn’t always been true.”

“The parties have been in discussions with the Department of Justice both prior to and since the October 7 status conference,” attorney Michael Boni explained in a letter requesting the extension. “We met with the Department as recently as this past Friday, November 6. In light of the above, the parties respectfully request this additional time to file the motion.”

It would seem, then, that the latest version of the settlement did not adequately address the DOJ’s concerns that the agreement could violate antitrust law by giving Google “de facto exclusive rights for the digital distribution of orphan works.” Presumably if it had, it would have been filed on time.

According to a 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Sun (JAVA) lost $120 million, or 16 cents a share, on revenue of $2.24 billion in its first quarter. During the same period a year ago, Sun lost $1.68 billion, or $2.24 a share, on $2.99 billion in sales. Analysts had been expecting earnings of 25 cents a share on revenue of $2.31 billion.

Oracle (ORCL) CEO Larry Ellison recently said that Sun is losing about $100 million a month as it waits for European antitrust regulators to approve its acquisition by Oracle. Looks like he’s about right.

Below, excerpts from the 10-Q:

Server Products Revenue
The decrease in Server Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to the economic downturn and consolidation of our customer base, specifically in the financial services sector, as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with the proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

Storage Products Revenue
The decrease in Storage Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily attributable to the economic downturn as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

North America
The decrease in revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to decreased sales of our enterprise Server Products, storage disk products and Services. We are still seeing the results of IT budget cuts instituted last year by our largest customers due to the economic downturn, especially in the financial services sector, in addition to the consolidation of our customer base. Across all sectors, non-critical projects are on hold. Revenue was also negatively impacted by the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

PREVIOUSLY:

• European Union Mulling Objection to Oracle-Sun Deal
• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Sun to Sack 3,000
• Former MySQL Boss to EC: Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

“After Gateway’s 2004 merger with eMachines, AMD attempted to revive the relationship it had enjoyed with Gateway until 2001, but experienced extremely limited success. While Gateway built one AMD-powered desktop model at the request of Circuit City, AMD remains locked out entirely of Gateway’s direct internet sales, its commercial offerings and its server line. According to Gateway executives, their Company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has beaten them into ‘guacamole’ in retaliation.”

– Excerpt from AMD’s 2005 complaint against Intel

Looks like it’s going to be a very busy fall for Intel legal. This morning, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the company, alleging that it violated state and federal laws with a “systematic campaign” of illegal conduct to maintain its monopoly.

At issue here, once again, is Intel’s alleged practice of using bribery and coercion to maintain its monopoly, something rival AMD complained about in its own antitrust suit against Intel (INTC) in 2005.

AMD (AMD) alleged, for example, that in 2000, Michael Capellas, then chief executive of Compaq Computer, told AMD that because of Compaq’s relationship with AMD, Intel withheld the delivery of some microprocessors he needed for servers. Capellas told AMD he would stop buying from it, saying he “had a gun to his head.”

Further, in 2004, Gateway officials are alleged to have told AMD that Intel “beat them into guacamole” in retaliation for their limited dealings with its rival. These are but two incidents in a list that includes similar alleged acts of coercion by Intel involving 38 other computer makers, distributors and retailers.

Apparently, Cuomo has found evidence of similar behavior. “Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

The Financial Times reports that Oracle’s refusal to offer any concessions to European antitrust regulators may lead them to issue a formal statement of objections to the deal. A complaint could come “within days,” sources tell the FT, though they note that it’s possible that one side or the other will back down before a formal complaint is filed.

If an objection is issued, it will inevitably prolong the entire review process, something Oracle and Sun can ill afford. As Ellison himself recently noted, Sun is losing $100 million a month waiting for approval of the deal.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Sun to Sack 3,000
• Former MySQL Boss to EC: Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

A: Kroes isn’t losing $100 million a month on Sun Microsystems.

Much as Ellison would like to blame the European Commission for yesterday’s bloodletting at Sun, responsibility lies squarely with Oracle (ORCL). For while Ellison complains that every month the $7.4 billion acquisition is delayed amounts to a $100 million loss for Sun (JAVA), he has not yet given the EC good reason to approve it–at least according Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, who’s disappointed with Oracle’s cooperation in the commission’s antitrust probe so far.

Kroes said as much in a recent meeting with Oracle president Safra Catz, according to Jonathan Todd, the commission’s spokesman for competition.

“Kroes expressed her disappointment that Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems or a proposal for a remedy to the competition concerns identified by the commission,” Todd told Bloomberg. “Kroes reiterated to Catz the commission’s willingness to move quickly towards a decision but underlined that a rapid solution lies in Oracle’s hands. Either they have to give us the information to prove that our competition concerns are not well founded or offer remedies to satisfy our concerns.”

So if Oracle is looking for a quick solution to the case, it best provide one–otherwise, it’s looking at $100 million a month in losses at Sun.

This past July, Google CEO Eric Schmidt left Apple’s board presumably for the same reason. The cozy relationship between the companies, which increasingly compete in the cellphone and operating systems markets, had led the FTC to question whether close ties between their boards of directors violate antitrust laws. With Schmidt gone from Apple’s board room and Levinson gone from Google’s, it would seem there’s no longer reason for the FTC to do so.

“Art has been a key part of Google’s success these past five years, offering unvarnished advice and vital counsel on every big issue and opportunity Google has faced,” Schmidt said in a statement. “Though he leaves as a member of our Board, Art will always have a special place at Google.”

Though not nearly as special as his place at Apple, where his remaining board seat and true allegiances clearly lie.

UPDATE:Levinson’s resignation from Apple’s board appears to have appeased the FTC. “Google, Apple, and Mr. Levinson should be commended for recognizing that overlapping board members between competing companies raise serious antitrust issues and for their willingness to resolve our concerns without the need for litigation,” FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement. “Beyond this matter, we will continue to monitor companies that share board members and take enforcement actions where appropriate.”