• 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.”

“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.

That’s the argument put forth by Piper Jaffray analyst Chris Larsen in a research note to investors Monday. Larsen feels that the cost to Apple (AAPL) of developing a CDMA version of the iPhone for Verizon’s (VZ) network and the subsidies the company might lose by ending its exclusivity deal with AT&T (T) would be a small price to pay for the spike in iPhone sales they would create.

“Although the iPhone is a strong player in the smartphone market, expanding its multi-vendor strategy could allow it to dominate the industry, as it does with the iPod,” Larsen writes. “The U.S. market is the world’s largest smartphone market, but we believe there is a land grab in the U.S. for smartphone share.”

Expanding his argument, Larson adds, “Apple’s exclusivity with AT&T has left the door open for strong competition from competitors, such as Research In Motion’s Blackberries, Palm’s webOS smartphones and Google’s Android operating system on multiple smartphones from OEMs such as Motorola, HTC, Samsung, LG, and others. Making the iPhone available to the other 150+ million subscribers (~2/3s of subscribers) not on AT&T’s network could result in iPod like adoption.”

Keeping the iPhone exclusive–while it might enable Apple to do more innovative things, as COO Tim Cook noted yesterday during the company’s quarterly earnings call–would also give those rival devices and platforms more time to catch up. If Apple really hopes to keep its lead in the U.S. market, it must do away with exclusivity deals, the same way it’s doing away with them abroad.

That’s bad news for AT&T. Because, as I’ve noted here before, a move to nonexclusivity in the U.S. would brutalize the carrier’s subscriber base. Analysts have long said that a material number of AT&T iPhone users would flock to Verizon’s superior network given the chance.

Larsen agrees. “A move to non-exclusivity in the U.S. could have a material impact on the U.S. wireless carriers,” he writes. “AT&T could lose meaningful smartphone share, while we think all the other carriers would gain share. We believe Verizon would be the largest beneficiary of non-exclusivity and the development of a CDMA iPhone.”

Continuing, Larson explains, “With 35% of AT&T’s iPhone sales coming from new customers, we feel it is reasonable to assume the company’s total iPhone sales could decline by 30% or more and that Verizon could pick up the bulk of this lost share (why switch to AT&T for iPhone if you haven’t left by now and the device is now available through your carrier; Verizon’s network quality could be a reason to switch from AT&T).”

“iDon’t have a real keyboard
iDon’t run simultaneous apps
iDon’t take night shots
iDon’t allow open development
iDon’t customize
iDon’t run widgets
iDon’t have interchangeable batteries
Everything iDon’t
DROID DOES”

Shown on Fox and CBS (CBS) during a pair of NFL football games Sunday afternoon, the ad clearly positions Droid as the mythical iPhone killer. And while that might seem foolhardy, perhaps even hubristic, those who’ve seen the Motorola (MOT)-designed device say it’s at the very least a worthy iPhone rival.

Says Boy Genius: “[This is] the Android device to beat, and easily the most impressive. From what we’ve been told, Google had a direct hand in the Motorola Droid. Something to the point of almost dictating every move Motorola made when designing and making the phone….the Droid, even in its non-final form, is the most impressive phone we’ve used since the iPhone. It’s positively amazing.”

A gushing endorsement of an unreleased device and as such, to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, it’s hard to believe Verizon (VZ) would go all out here without good reason. And make no mistake, the company is going all out, even to the point of licensing the “Droid” trademark from Lucasfilm.

This past weekend’s TV commercial and a Droid teaser site are clearly the beginning of a major marketing push intended to position Droid as the Apple (AAPL) iPhone’s better, or at least its equal. Little wonder then that Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt was so upbeat about Android’s future during the search engine company’s earnings call last week.

“Android adoption is literally about to explode,” Schmidt said. “You have all the necessary conditions, you have the vendors, you have the distribution and so forth. This is a very critical period with all of everything being delivered.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Verizon to iPhone Users: “Want Five Times More 3G Coverage? There’s a Map for That.”
• Perhaps by “Devices Like the Pre,” Verizon CEO Meant the iPhone?
• Analyst: AT&T Screwed Without iPhone Exclusivity
• Q: Should Apple Bring the iPhone to Verizon? A: Yes.
• Apple, Verizon and the iPhone LiTE

In a research note issued this morning, Huberty–noting that the iPhone’s market share grew 136 percent in France when Apple switched to multicarrier agreements there–said iPhone sales could more than double if the company took a similar tack in other countries.

“We expect Apple to broaden iPhone carrier distribution over the next two years and believe this opportunity is under-appreciated by the investment community,” she wrote. “This total opportunity is substantial–it adds up to an incremental 20.3M iPhone units and $3.76 in adjusted EPS, 100 percent and 41 percent of iPhone units and adjusted EPS respectively.”

Adding further details to her projections, Huberty continues: “In the top six iPhone markets that are still exclusive, we believe that Apple’s market share could rise to 10 percent, on average, in a multiple carrier distribution model from 4 percent today. These six markets represented almost 70 percent percent of iPhone shipments in C2Q09.”

Huberty also claims that if Apple (AAPL) were to end its exclusivity deal with AT&T (T) and add Verizon (VZ) as a second carrier, its share of the U.S. market would more than double, rising to 12.2 percent from 4.9 percent today.

Huberty, it should be noted, isn’t the first analyst to make such a claim. In June, Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi said that a deal with Verizon could more than double U.S. iPhone sales in the near term. Said Sacconaghi: “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.”

Rabid demand for the iPhone has emptied not just the company’s physical retail outlets, but its online store as well. “We continue to see extremely high levels of demand for the iPhone which means it comes in and out of stock very quickly and will be why the Web site hasn’t had any since Monday,” an O2 spokesperson told the Telegraph.

News of the shortage comes just days after O2 rivals Orange and Vodafone both announced plans to carry the iPhone later this year, bringing an end to O2’s exclusivity deal with Apple (AAPL). If Apple is unable to meet consumer demand with just a single U.K. carrier, how will it cope with three?

A reasonable question, but one for which Apple presumably has an answer. Said Forrester (FORR) analyst Mark Mulligan, “I don’t think [Apple] would expand if it couldn’t meet consumer demand, as that would lead to extreme consumer dissatisfaction–which compared to its peers, Apple is usually good at avoiding.”

“We believe the press reports late Thursday afternoon that Verizon would not launch the Palm Pre are incorrect,” Goldberg wrote. “Our checks continue to point to healthy carrier demand for the Pre early in calendar 2010. We believe Palm has placed orders with the supply chain for another version of the Pre with features highly consistent with a Verizon launch.”

Over at Morgan Keegan & Co, Tavis McCourt was equally dubious. “Palm reiterated its FY2010 guidance, which we believe REQUIRES a launch at Verizon (you just can’t get there with just Sprint and AT&T),” he wrote. “Verizon has carried just about every Palm product in its history, and the Pre is clearly the best. We do not have insight as to the marketing support Palm will get from Verizon, but we see little risk in not getting a placement at this carrier. The timing of the rumor post-deal makes it equally as dubious as the timing of the ‘Nokia will buy Palm’ rumor during the roadshow.”

McCourt, it’s worth noting, believes the Pre will come to Verizon Wireless early next year. “Feb. holds the potential to be a strong Pre quarter as shipments to Sprint likely stabilize and distribution expands to Verizon Wireless (our assumption),” he explains. “Palm’s success at Sprint has typically been a good barometer for shipment trends at VZW and, with a postpaid sub base that’s roughly 3x as large as Sprint’s CDMA business, the market opportunity at VZW is much larger. However, Pre trends at Sprint were aided by the device’s near term exclusivity and a large base of existing Palm users upgrading their devices, both factors that VZW lacks.”

UPDATE: Jim Gerace, executive director of media relations at Verizon, tells E-Commerce Times that the company will offer the smartphone in January as planned.

UPDATED: Sources are telling Boy Genius that TheStreet.com’s report is bogus as well.

Clearly, there’s quite a bit of enthusiasm around the device and its Motoblur feature, which connects a variety of social networking services to the phone’s core functions.

Said Mark Sue, an analyst at RBC Capital: “Our initial take is favorable, and it seems that Motorola is carving out a niche in the crowded smartphone market by focusing on socially minded demographics as opposed to enterprise users or pro-sumers. We think it’s a step in the right direction.”

C.L. King analyst Lawrence Harris was similarly impressed. “Our initial impression of the CLIQ is that it is not an iPhone killer, but that it will be a contender,” he said in a research note issued today. “…Initial reviews suggest that the CLIQ’s build quality is excellent with a solid keyboard, two important selling points.”

And Tavis McCourt at Morgan Keegan said the CLIQ is a credible device–assuming Motorola (MOT) can sell enough of them. “MOTOBLUR clearly differentiates a Motorola Android-based smartphone from others on the market and provides Motorola a fighting chance at successfully turning around Mobile Devices with Android-based devices,” he noted today.

“The CLIQ appears to be a solid touch screen smartphone,” McCourt added, “but we will defer from offering a more confident opinion until we get a chance to test one and note that we expect the upcoming Motorola Android-based device for Verizon Wireless may be somewhat more impressive. We believe Motorola ultimately needs to sell about 2 million smartphones/quarter in order to become sustainably profitable in its Mobile Devices business.”

McCourt’s conclusion: “Given Motorola’s global distribution, this does not require a ‘home run’ product, but only a series of ‘solid’ products. The CLIQ appears to be a good first step in this turnaround.”

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?

Typically, U.S. companies that do business in Japan without offices in the country aren’t required to pay taxes to the Japanese government. And Amazon (AMZN) has long counted itself among them, claiming purchases made through Amazon Japan are technically transacted in the states. Yet the company does have some retail infrastructure in the country through which it handles merchandise distribution, logistics and whatnot. And, according to the Bureau, that means Amazon has “permanent establishment” in Japan and should be taxed in the country under the U.S.-Japan tax treaty.

Another nasty tax headache for Amazon.com, which also faces calls for tax payments back in the U.S. and in Britain, France, and Germany as well. From the company’s annual report:

We Could be Subject to Additional Income Tax Liabilities
We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in evaluating our worldwide provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by earnings being lower than anticipated in countries where we have lower statutory rates and higher than anticipated in countries where we have higher statutory rates, by changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities, or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting and other laws, regulations, principles and interpretations. We are subject to audit in various jurisdictions, and such jurisdictions may assess additional income tax against us. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, the final determination of tax audits and any related litigation could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. The results of an audit or litigation could have a material effect on our operating results or cash flows in the period or periods for which that determination is made.

Amazing when you think about it, really. On the promise of the Pre and the company’s new WebOS operating system alone, Palm (PALM) has added more than $1.5 billion to its market cap. A quick and impressive recovery, and one that analysts say is likely to continue now that the device has had a successful launch.

In an investment note today, RBC analyst Mark Abramsky esimates that Palm has sold 150,000 Pre handsets to date and predicts it will sell 4.1 million in fiscal 2010 and 6.5 million in fiscal 2011.

Over at Credit Suisse (CS), analyst Deepak Sitaramaneven is even more optimistic. He sees Palm selling 7.7 million Pres in 2010. “The successful launch of the Pre at Sprint Nextel (S) has raised carrier interest given Palm now offers a credible alternative to Apple (AAPL),” Sitaramaneven wrote. “We believe this will drive top-line growth of 144% in calendar 2010, and our estimate is predicated on 7.7 million units in calendar 2010.”

That seems a rather…buoyant prediction for a company still grappling with Pre supply issues. That said, if Palm is able to score distribution deals with Verizon (VZ), AT&T (T), Vodafone (VOD) and others by the beginning of next year, the prediction may be within the realm of possibility. Something to think about as the company prepares to report quarterly earnings tomorrow.

“We believe Wal-Mart is actively pitching Apple to carry more products,” Reitzes said in a research note this morning. “With Wal-Mart improving its retail displays, we believe that the mega-retailer could eventually earn the right to sell select Mac products without diluting Apple’s brand….Apple is very particular and exclusive with who sells its Macs and any ‘Mac experiment’ with Wal-Mart would likely start very gradually via a pilot program at first–just like Mac sales started at Best Buy….While we don’t expect an immediate impact this year and believe Apple would need to reposition its line-up first, we believe that closer ties to Wal-Mart makes sense.”

Indeed, Wal-Mart (WMT) could certainly bolster Apple’s (AAPL) distribution, particularly in areas without Apple Stores. A compelling proposition: broader access to the mass-market consumer without the infrastructure costs of a standalone boutique. And surely Apple has overcome its aversion to Wal-Mart now that the big-box retailer has been peddling its iPhones for so long.

A couple thoughts: Odd, isn’t it, that we’ve seen two stories on an Apple/Verizon deal in as many days in two major news publications? They are presumably well-sourced and bullet-proof. Could be that “people familiar with the matter” are Apple execs simply using the media to put the screws to AT&T (T) in advance of the two companies’ iPhone contract renewal negotiations.

Or is it something else?

Perhaps these pieces are the first signs of the Apple’s cunning PR machine ramping up for some big announcements this summer. An Apple tablet/e-book reader is likely different enough from an iPhone that it wouldn’t interfere with AT&T’s exclusive deal on the device. And what of that “iPhone light” mentioned in the BusinessWeek story? Could it perhaps be an iPhone LTE? Or rather iPhone LiTE? A new device designed for the LTE (long term evolution) standard Verizon will begin supporting widely right around the time AT&T’s exclusive iPhone deal expires?

At issue here was whether the sale of digital music downloads falls under the “distribution” agreements that cover physical releases like CDs. FBT argued they do not, claiming that the label incurs none of the costs typically associated with them–things like CD jewel cases and inserts, breakage fees and in-store displays. Instead, the production company said that downloads should be covered by “licensing” agreements that don’t include such expenses. And the difference between the two is significant: Under distribution deals, artists typically take a 30 percent split of royalties earned. Under licensing deals, they take 50 percent.

But the jury didn’t quite see things FBT’s way and instead bought Universal’s argument that the economics for digital downloads should be viewed as similar to those of the single. A nasty blow to FBT and other artists hoping to see their royalty rates adjusted to account for the new economies of distribution provided by digital music storefronts. Seems that much as technology has changed the relationship between musicians and their fans, it’s done little to change the one between musicians and their labels.

The short, and obvious, answer to that question is “a hell of a lot.” In a note to clients today, Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi argues that Wal-Mart (WMT) can sell between 800,000 and 1.3 million iPhones in 2009, though the retailer’s low price mantra may appear inconsistent with the iPhone’s market positioning. And that would seem to be a reasonable estimate. After all, Wal-Mart has some 2,500 retail outlets in the states, through which 100 million customers stream each week.

“The addition of Wal-Mart will roughly double the iPhone’s distribution in the US to nearly 6,000 outlets,” Sacconaghi writes. “We believe iPhone sales will benefit from the added distribution, though not proportionately; in our view, price (for both the device and service plan) is still the biggest hurdle to mass adoption…. With the iPhone already available at 3,000 Apple, AT&T (T), and Best Buy (BBY) stores, Wal-Mart likely does little to expand the device’s geographic reach. However, we believe Wal-Mart will have a greater impact on the iPhone’s demographic reach in terms of raising awareness and availability among lower-end consumers who are less likely to shop at the Apple Stores or BestBuy.”

One last point worth noting here, Sacconaghi puts little faith in rumors that Wal-Mart will offer a $99 4GB iPhone. “Could there be a cheaper iPhone at Wal-Mart,” he writes. “We think it unlikely, at least initially, but the idea is not completely unfounded. In our view, a $99 price point for the iPhone seems too low, but some modest discount is not implausible.”