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.

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.”

According to Oracle (ORCL) CEO Larry Ellison, Sun (JAVA) is already losing $100 million a month as it waits for regulatory approval, and judging from the price of the company’s stock today, it may be losing even more than that. Shares in Sun slid to $8.11–about 15 percent below Oracle’s offer price and a far cry from the $9.18 they hit in mid-October.

Clearly, investors are alarmed by this latest turn of events, though industry observers say there’s little reason for them to be. Morgan Stanley, for example, believes Oracle’s acquisition of Sun will win EU approval with few, if any, modifications to the MySQL database software about which regulators are so concerned.

“Based on our diligence, we believe the EC is likely to approve the deal with no remedies or remedies pertaining to MySQL’s licensing,” the research house said in a note to clients today. “It is highly unlikely that Oracle restructures the deal (e.g. spins MySQL) or walks away.”

Morgan Stanley’s call: The deal will go through and at $9.50 per share. As the firm notes, the EU hasn’t blocked a U.S.-based transaction since GE/Honeywell in 2001.

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.

“I understand the European Union has a job to do, but the longer this takes, the more money Sun is going to lose and that’s not good. We want to get it done to save as many jobs as we can.”

– Oracle CEO Larry Ellison

The end of Sun Microsystems as an independent company after 27 years is to be prefaced with a bloodletting. And a big one too. The company is sacking some 3,000 employees as it awaits the closing of Oracle’s (ORCL) planned $7.4 billion takeover.

That’s about 10 percent of its workforce.

The cuts, which were disclosed in a regulatory filing today, are to occur in all markets in which Sun (JAVA) has a presence and will be completed over the next 12 months. Sun expects to incur cash severance and other charges of $75 million to $125 million over the next several quarters as a result.

Seems Oracle CEO Larry Ellison wasn’t kidding when he said further delays in approving his company’s deal to buy Sun would cost more people their jobs.

Ugly news for Sun, which has already made sweeping job cuts over the past year, releasing some 6,000 employees into the wild since last November.

Oracle and Sun have not yet responded to requests for comment.

UPDATE: Oracle has declined to comment on the layoffs at Sun.

In a research note issued this morning, Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi wondered whether Oracle (ORCL) might even consider walking away from the deal, though he ultimately concluded that it was unlikely.

“Given ORCL’s repeated and strident commentary, it appears very unlikely that it will walk away from the deal, although it would not face a break-up fee if it did (unlike Sun, which faces a $260+ million break-up fee),” he wrote. “We continue to believe that the JAVA-ORCL deal is very likely to close, but it will be interesting to see if Oracle’s conviction level waivers at all on its earnings call today.”

Indeed. Certainly, there are plenty of reasons to think that it might. For one thing, notes Sacconaghi, Sun’s (JAVA) recent financials are going to make it difficult for for Oracle to hit its promised $1.5 billion in first-year accretion profits.

“Our forecast now calls for [Sun] to be barely break even on a non-GAAP basis next year,” Sacconaghi says, adding that earnings are likely to be nearly $900 million less than he modeled when the deal was first announced. “Accordingly, assuming no material revenue synergies, our analysis suggests that in order to hit its $1.5B accretion target, Oracle may need to reduce Sun’s workforce by 15,000, which represents over 50 percent of Sun’s current headcount and appears implausible.”

So Oracle could hit its aggressive Year One accretion targets. It would just have to gut Sun to do it.

One last point worth noting here. Sacconaghi seems confident the European Union will ultimately approve Oracle’s acquisition of Sun, though possibly with conditions around mySQL. But he thinks approval will take time. And the longer it takes, the worse it will be for Sun, whose business is already suffering from the uncertainty surrounding it.

“…The EU took an average of 140 days between the time that a Phase II [review] was announced and a merger was ultimately approved,” he explains. “Given that Phase II for the JAVA deal was announced on September 3rd, this implies a January date for resolution, and would require JAVA to go through another two full quarters as a standalone company. With uncertainty around the ORCL deal already weighing on JAVA, this suggests the potential for further erosion in Sun’s financials.”

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

Sewell joined Intel (INTC) in 1995 as a senior attorney and was named general counsel in 2004. In that capacity, he managed Intel’s antitrust battles in Japan, Korea, the United States and now, the European Union as well. At Apple (AAPL), he succeeds Daniel Cooperman, who will retire at month’s end.

“We are thrilled to have Bruce join our executive team, and wish Dan a very happy retirement,” Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. “With Bruce’s extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property, we expect this to be a seamless transition.”

It would seem, then, that Sewell’s decision to leave Intel for Apple is more train-hopping than anything else. And while it certainly comes at a lousy time for Intel, it’s not likely indicative of some upset within the company’s legal department.

As Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood told me this morning, “Some personnel changes result from the circumstances of the individuals involved, rather than high level machinations within the organizations to which they belong. Cooperman’s retirement created the opening at Apple, a position Sewell is well qualified to fill. My bottom line: Bruce’s move has more to do with Apple’s need for a top notch lawyer than with Intel’s current legal situation.”

The official announcement, below.

Bruce Sewell to Join Apple as General Counsel & SVP

Daniel Cooperman to Retire

CUPERTINO, Calif., Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Apple today announced that Bruce Sewell, formerly senior vice president and general counsel of Intel Corporation (INTC), will join Apple as the company’s General Counsel and senior vice president, Legal and Government Affairs, reporting to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Daniel Cooperman, who has served in these roles at Apple for the past two years, will be retiring at the end of September.

“We are thrilled to have Bruce join our executive team, and wish Dan a very happy retirement,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “With Bruce’s extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property, we expect this to be a seamless transition.”

At Intel, Sewell has been responsible for leading all of Intel’s legal, corporate affairs and corporate social responsibility programs, managing attorneys and policy professionals located in over 30 countries around the world. He joined Intel in 1995 as a senior attorney assigned to counsel various business groups in areas such as antitrust compliance, licensing and intellectual property. In 2001, Sewell was promoted to vice president and deputy general counsel, managing Intel’s litigation portfolio, and handled corporate transactions including M&A activities.

Prior to joining Intel, he was a partner in the litigation firm of Brown and Bain PC. Sewell was admitted to the California Bar in 1986 and to the Washington D.C. Bar in 1987. He received his J.D. from George Washington University in 1986, and a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Lancaster, in the United Kingdom, in 1979.

Which is interesting since Sewell has been quarterbacking Intel’s (INTC) fight against antitrust allegations at home and abroad since, well, since they were first brought against the company in Japan. And Korea. And the United States, and now the European Union as well.

So to hear he’s leaving today after 14 years with the company with no explanation of why or where he’s headed…

to hear there’s no one lined up to take his place (Suzan Miller, currently deputy general counsel, will become interim general counsel until a replacement is found)…

and to hear this at a time when the company is grappling with some of the most important legal issues it’s ever faced…

when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the European Commission are both probing Intel’s alleged antitrust violations in the microprocessor market…

when the company is just six months away from going to trial with rival chip maker AMD (AMD), which accuses Intel of using illegal inducements to dissuade OEMs from buying AMD processors and “knee-capping” those who did….

Well, it’s all a bit odd, isn’t it?

I mean Sewell’s Intel bio is already returning “Page Not Found” errors (see below; click image to enlarge).

What’s going on in Intel legal? Reached for comment, the company didn’t have much of an answer to the question other than to say that Sewell is leaving of his own accord and it’s sad to see him go. “All I can say is that Bruce has decided voluntarily to leave the company,” Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy told me. “We are not talking about his plans. He was not forced to leave and we were surprised by his decision.”

UPDATE: Sewell’s leaving Intel to become General Counsel at Apple.

To wit, Google’s announcement Monday of a number of concessions to the European Union, which seems a bit dubious of the whole thing. In a letter to several publisher associations in Europe, the company invited two non-U.S. representatives to join the board that will oversee the book rights registry that is to distribute royalties from digital book sales under terms proposed by the settlement. The company also promised to seek their permission before digitally publishing European works still protected by copyrights.

“Books that are commercially available in Europe will be treated as commercially available under the Settlement,” Google (GOOG) explained. “Such books can only be displayed to US users if expressly authorised by rights holders.”

Quite a concession, given Google’s plans to create a so-called “last library,” but clearly necessary with opposition to the deal abroad so pronounced. Already, Germany has filed an objection to it, saying the agreement would “irrevocably alter the landscape of international copyright law.” And now France is about to do the same.

“Google will have a monopoly digitalising European orphan works without permission,” Nicolas Georges, director for books and libraries at the French Culture Ministry, told Reuters. “Google has the power to determine which work will be in its database or not. For example, some works that are not commercial may be removed by Google.”

Seems Google’s effort to establish a de facto worldwide copyright regime isn’t going to be quite as easy as the company had hoped.

On what grounds? Intel (INTC) spokesperson Robert Manetta said simply that the EC’s “decision is wrong.” Said Manetta: “We believe the European Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence.”

Just how Intel intends to prove that isn’t yet clear. But we may find out in September when the court is likely to issue a summary of the company’s complaints.