“Microsoft and Yahoo!’s share of online paid search advertising queries in Australia was limited,” the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission said in its notice of approval. “In combining search engine platforms, Microsoft and Yahoo! may have been able to achieve the necessary scale to provide effective and sustainable competition to Google, which had a very large share of online paid search advertising queries.”

Great news for the two companies, whose plan to consolidate two of the search market’s three largest players is currently under review by antitrust regulators at the U.S. Justice Department. Should it be approved, Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) will together control nearly 30 percent of the U.S. search market, giving them a better chance to compete with Google (GOOG), which holds a roughly 65 percent market share.

“We continue to believe that this deal will create a true, competitive alternative in the marketplace that will benefit consumers, advertisers and publishers,” the companies said in a joint statement. “We remain hopeful that the agreement will close in early 2010.”

• 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.”

Nortel Networks has rejected Research In Motion’s bid for the wireless infrastructure assets Nortel is unloading as part of bankruptcy proceedings. RIM said Monday night that it intended to offer $1.1 billion for Nortel’s CDMA and LTE businesses, but was told it could do so only if it agreed not to bid on other Nortel assets, something it had intended to do.

In a blistering statement, RIM (RIMM) accused Nortel (NT) of imposing unfair conditions on the court-supervised auction of its assets and of jeopardizing their continued Canadian ownership.

“RIM is extremely disappointed that Nortel’s world leading technology, the development of which has been funded in part by Canadian taxpayers, seems destined to leave Canada,” said co-CEO Jim Balsillie. “RIM remains extremely interested in acquiring Nortel assets through a Canadian ownership solution that would serve the dual purpose of keeping key wireless technologies in Canada and extending RIM’s leadership in the research, development and distribution of leading edge wireless solutions, but RIM has found itself blocked at every turn.”

Why? Nortel says RIM was late to the game and hasn’t followed proper auction procedure.

“Other parties moved expeditiously to comply with the court approved procedures to become a qualified bidder,” the company said in a statement. “It was not until July 15, 2009, that RIM submitted a letter to Nortel asking to be a qualified bidder and since that time, Nortel has diligently attempted to work with RIM on acceptable confidentiality terms relating to Nortel’s valuable intellectual property assets, but RIM refused to comply with the court approved procedures.”

What’s really going on here? It’s hard to say, though clearly there’s more to the story. After all, RIM’s $1.1 billion bid is far, far more than Nokia Siemens’s stalking horse bid of $650 million. And what does RIM want with the CDMA business, anyway?

And so the company today said that beginning Friday, “select markets” can preorder Windows 7 at a more than 50 percent discount. In the U.S., that means Windows 7 Home Premium will set you back about $50, or Windows 7 Professional about $100. A “screaming deal,” Microsoft calls it.

The promotion runs until July 11 in the U.S. and Canada and until July 5 in Japan, or “while supplies last.” If you choose not to preorder an upgrade copy, you’ll obviously pay a bit more for Windows 7 when it finally ships on Oct. 22. Existing XP and Vista customers in the U.S. will be able to purchase Home Premium for $119.99, Professional for $199.99 and Ultimate for $219.99. New customers will pay $199.99 for Home Premium, $299.99 for Professional and $319.99 for Ultimate.

Pricey, but about 8 to 17 percent less than Vista. Said Brandon LeBlanc, Microsoft’s in-house Windows blogger, “Overall, customers will be paying less and getting more with Windows 7.”

For their sake, let’s hope so. Especially if they paid retail for Vista.

“It was clear that internationally, just as in the US, MySpace’s staffing had become too big and cumbersome to be sustainable in current market conditions,” said MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta. “Today’s proposed changes are designed to transform and refine our international growth strategy.” Operations in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Sweden and Spain are “under review,” he added, and face possible closure.

The cuts follow a 30 percent reduction in headcount in the states last week and the hastening erosion of MySpace’s position in the social-networking market. MySpace lost the title of world’s most popular social network to rival Facebook last year and was overtaken by it in the U.S. last month as well.

Early gains do not guarantee a long-term increase in search market share, and thanks to its experience with Live Search and Live Search Cashback, Microsoft (MSFT) knows this better than anyone. That said, Redmond’s new search engine, Bing, does seem to be making some solid progress.

For example, a comScore (SCOR) report said earlier this week that Microsoft’s share of the search market has risen to 11.1 percent from 9.1 percent since Bing’s debut.

And now market researcher Hitwise reports that Bing is among the top 20 most popular Web sites in the U.S. and among the top 10 in Canada (click on chart below).

“In the U.S., Bing ranked 17th among all Web sites out of over 450,000 Web sites, up from 5120 the week before the official launch when the Web site was merely a placeholder,” Heather Dougherty, Director of Research at Hitwise, wrote in a blog post. “Within the Search Engines category, Bing ranked 4th out of the search engines tracked by Hitwise…In Canada, Bing hit the top 10 among all Web sites during the first week of launch and captured 1% of all Canadian Internet visits last week. Bing also ranked 3rd last week in terms of the market share of visits within the Search Engines category behind Google Canada and Google.”

Not bad. Of course, early successes like these are driven as much by marketing as by technological prowess and positive user experience. And right now, Bing’s got some major marketing dollars behind it. But those will only last for so long.

And as Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt likes to point out, you really can’t expect to buy your way into the search market. “You don’t just buy it with ads,” Schmidt told Fox Business earlier this week. “You earn it, and you earn it customer by customer, search by search, answer by answer.”

Palm (PALM) hasn’t yet announced a price for its forthcoming Pre handset. Nor has the company provided an official release date. But today it did give those waiting with rapt anticipation for news of the device something to chew on: a new carrier. Bell Mobility has negotiated an exclusive on the Pre in Canada. The handset will arrive at market there sometime in the second half of 2009 and run on Bell Mobility’s 3G high-speed mobile network. “Bell is excited to be only the second carrier in the world to announce the 3G Pre,” said Adel Bazerghi, senior VP of products for Bell Mobility, in a statement. “With the unique user experience of the world’s first webOS phone, running on the country’s largest 3G network, we’re confident that Canadians will embrace Pre as the phone for their lives today.”

That’s wonderful. But when will they embrace it? And how much will it cost them to do it?

Like AT&T (T), Rogers is heavily subsidizing the iPhone’s upfront purchase cost and that is a bit of a financial burden. But it’s one that should be offset by the revenues generated by the device’s new owners. As AT&T noted a few weeks back, iPhone users generate more revenue per person than the typical wireless user. And that’s clearly been the case with Rogers. Most of Rogers’ iPhone subscribers opted for monthly voice and data packages and that increased average revenue per user four percent year-over-year to $78.46. Better still, one-third of iPhone buyers were new Rogers subscribers and they’ve all been locked into three-year contracts. And that’s certain to put the hurt on Rogers’ rivals, who’ll reveal the extent of their suffering when they next report earnings.

The World Association of Newspapers said Monday that it opposes the deal, adding its name to a growing list of critics that now includes not just Microsoft, but the Association of National Advertisers and European Union as well. Late Monday, WAN, which represents 76 national newspaper associations and more than 18,000 publications on five continents, issued a statement condemning the Google-Yahoo deal as disastrous for the newspaper industry. Surprisingly hostile in tone, it argues that the proposed advertising alliance between Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO) will weaken competition in the online advertising space and solidify Google’s dominance in search at a time when the company is expanding its own content businesses:

The upshot is that the deal will force newspapers to become even more dependent on Google than they are today. By handing Google control of up to 90 percent of paid search and content advertising, Google will exert tremendous power over both newspapers’ ability to reach readers and their ability to generate online advertising revenue. Perhaps never in the history of newspaper publishing has a single, commercial entity threatened to exert this much control over the destiny of the press.

It is particularly worrisome that this consolidation of power is occurring at the same time that Google increasingly takes positions that are adverse to newspapers and other content creators. Google already owns several content sites that directly compete with content developed by newspapers and other creators–often by simply copying others’ content without authorization. Usually, Google alone profits from this misappropriation. Take, for example, the case of Google News, which a Google senior executive recently admitted drives $100 million in advertising revenue to Google itself yet provides nothing–not a penny–to the newspaper companies whose works appear on those pages.

Clearly, newspapers have quite a few axes to grind with Google, and WAN appears intent on grinding them all at once. That said, Google’s partnership with Yahoo would be limited to the United States and Canada, so the protestations of a group of international newspapers may not carry as much weight with the regulators reviewing the deal as WAN would like. Especially after the U.S.-based Newspaper Association of America so quickly distanced itself from them. Said NAA CEO John F. Sturm, “While NAA is a member of the World Association of Newspapers, I would like to clarify that the NAA Board of Directors has taken no position on the proposed advertising partnership between Google and Yahoo.”