Filed last Friday, the latest version of the settlement is more limited in scope, but has still drawn the ire of critics, who claim it remains rife with “anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

Chin evidently disagrees, and Google (GOOG) is obviously quite pleased that he has done so. “The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form,” the company said in a statement.

“We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court,” Google continues, “and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web.”

In a statement of its own, the Open Books Alliance, one of the settlement’s harshest critics, warned Google not to get too, too hopeful. “Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google’s copyright infringement lawsuit,” the group said.

“This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0,” the Alliance warned. “The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.”

“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 –

“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.

The judge presiding over the case, who’d been urged by the U.S. Department of Justice to reject an earlier version of the settlement, set that date during a morning hearing so brief that when MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka asked Google CEO Eric Schmidt about it at a company roundtable this morning, Schmidt was unaware a date had been set. When Peter broke the news to him, Schmidt didn’t have much of a comment, but he did speak briefly about the settlement and Google’s view of it earlier in the morning.

From Peter’s paraphrased notes on the session:

With respect to book search, we were doing something that we thought was appropriate. We were sued, and after three years of discussion we’ve come to a settlement. This is perfectly normal. From our perspective, this is a settlement we like, it’s a settlement we think they’ll like, and we’ll hear what the court says, within minutes. Let me reframe your question: There’s nothing particularly exclusive about what we’re doing. The rights registry we’re doing is for the benefit of orphan works. “It’s not a particularly good business for us. We’re doing it because we think it’s the right thing to do.” We don’t think the settlement is perfect, but we think it’s good.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, Google and the authors and publishers it has allied with it have quite a few critics to appease, including academics, librarians, privacy advocates, would-be rivals and the French and German governments.

“For the last several months, we have consistently stated and maintained that our System V code is in Linux,” McBride explained. “The claims SCO has are both broad and deep. These claims touch not just IBM but other vendors as well. They also touch certain industry consortia and corporate Linux end users. Our claims aren’t trivial. The violations of our intellectual property are not easily repaired. It is our intention to vigorously protect and enforce SCO’s intellectual property, System V source code and our copyrights. We’re now fully prepared to do that.”

And they did. SCO subsequently filed suit against IBM (IBM), auto giant DaimlerChrysler and a coterie of other companies, each time sounding the same theme: Our copyrighted UNIX code was illegally cobbled into Linux. You’re using it without a license. Pay up.

But SCO never specified exactly the Linux code it believes infringes on its copyrights, even in the face of repeated calls to do so from its defendants and the open source community. Indeed, it could be said that the company’s legal campaign against Linux was defined by its utter failure to prove that the open-source operating system contains any of its intellectual property. Certainly, that was the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which found that the copyright to UNIX and UnixWare was owned by Novell. That decision drove SCO into bankruptcy and ended its high-profile legal attack on Linux.

But only for a time. Because a federal appeals court on Monday ruled that SCO is entitled to a jury trial on its claims to Unix, a ruling that might lead to a renewal of the company’s campaign against Linux. “We take no position on which party ultimately owns the Unix copyrights or which copyrights were required for Santa Cruz to exercise its rights under the agreement,” the court wrote in its ruling. “Such matters are for the finder of fact on remand.”

And so, astonishingly, this six-year battle is headed back to court once again, a development Darl McBride was quick to spin as a vindication in one of his typically pontifical pronouncements. “Today is not the end of the war but it certainly is a key battle that we’ve won,” he said of the decision. “Now it’s time to move on to the next series of battles with our victory in hand.”

Of course, for events to play out that way, SCO must prove that Unix contains its intellectual property, something it has so far failed abysmally to do. Indeed, the judge presiding over the original case compared SCO’s claims to those of a store owner accusing someone of shoplifting but refusing to say what items had been stolen. As Linux creator Linus Torvalds once said, “There really is a reason why nobody believes a word SCO is saying, and it’s because SCO is lying.”

The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online.

“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”

The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works–copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the “fairness hearing” that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away. Clearly, Google’s recent public relations offensive claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.

Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:

“The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.

It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.”

2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter –

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.

“The majority of all internet traffic is file sharing, which is why nothing other than the new IPRED law can explain this major drop in traffic,” Anti-piracy Agency lawyer Henrik Pontén told Metro. “This sends a very strong signal that the legislation works.” Christian Engstrom, vice chairman of the Pirate Party, a group seeking copyright law reform, agreed, but said the decline is likely to be only temporary. Once the public realizes that the odds of being busted for file-sharing are low, Internet traffic will return to normal levels again. “Today, there is a very drastic reduction in internet traffic,” Engstrom told The BBC. “But experience from other countries suggests that while file-sharing drops on the day a law is passed, it starts climbing again. One of the reasons is that it takes people a few weeks to figure out how to change their security settings so that can share files anonymously. We estimate there are two million file-sharing [computers] in Sweden, so even if they prosecuted a 1,000 people to make an example of them, for an individual user it is still a very small risk.”

[Image credit: Chart courtesy Royal Pingdom]

In a hastily released statement, the IFPI downplayed the abrupt change of tack, claiming the amended charges will simplify its case. Said IFPI counsel Peter Danowsky, “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Bay had a different take on the matter though. Said co-founder Peter Sunde in a Twitter message: EPIC WINNING LOL.

On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that APPLE intentionally embeds code in the Mac OS that causes the Mac OS to malfunction on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System. Upon recognizing that a computer hardware system is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System, the Mac OS will not operate properly, if at all, and will go into what is colloquially known as ‘kernel panic.’

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE is engaged in anticompetitive conduct that prevents the proper operation of the Mac OS on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System–a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System–thereby forcing customers of the Mac OS to purchase–and only purchase–an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System if they wish to have the Mac OS operate sans kernel panic or an infinite loop.”

That’s an intriguing allegation. Risky though, since it’s also an admission that Psystar has circumvented the technological copyright-protection measures built into OS X, just as Apple claims in its amended complaint against the company. Apple contends Psystar has done so illegally, in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar says that’s impossible because the kernel panic-forcing code at issue here isn’t a copyright-protection measure.

Who’s right? Who knows? But if it’s Apple, then Psystar presumably is guilty of circumventing Apple’s copyright protection systems under the DMCA. And that’s a felony, because Psystar profited from the circumvention.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.