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.”

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.

Citing misconduct by prosecutors, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ordered a new trial for Reyes, who had been convicted of 10 charges of conspiracy, fraud, making false regulator filings and falsifying records for backdating hundreds of employee stock options.

A favorable turn of luck for Reyes, who had been sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay a $15 million fine for misdeeds that, according to that three-judge panel, had been grossly exaggerated and perhaps even fabricated.

“Deliberate false statements by those privileged to represent the United States harm the trial process and the integrity of our prosecutorial system,” Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in the 3-0 ruling. “We do not lightly tolerate a prosecutor asserting as a fact to the jury something known to be untrue or, at the very least, that the prosecution had very strong reason to doubt.”

The panel stopped short of throwing the case out entirely, noting that “there was no question that Reyes signed off on stock-option grants that were priced retrospectively and that the backdating allowed Brocade to understate its compensation expenses.” So the United States attorney could opt to retry the case, though that seems a bleak option at this point given the tenor of the ruling.

“This is the highest profile [backdating] case they had that went to trial, so I’d expect they will try it again, if for no other reason than for reputational purposes,” Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning told the Mercury News. “But talk about a case that’s stale.”

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.

The company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, though CEO Sal Iannuzzi’s comment on the matter was fairly apologetic, as well it should be–after all, Monster had to restate its results for 1997 through 2005 to the tune of about $339.5 million (pre-tax). “This is an important step in closing an unfortunate chapter in the company’s history and putting the issue firmly behind us,” Iannuzzi said in a statement. “Our current executive team has spent the last two years refocusing Monster on its customers and shareholders, retooling the day-to-day management, and overhauling governance in an effort to adhere to the highest standards.”

European regulators slapped Intel with an antitrust fine and, as expected, it’s a large one–a record $1.45 billion, which dwarfs even the $1.2 billion fine levied against Microsoft in 2008. The largest ever assessed for monopoly abuse, the fine follows charges that Intel (INTC) abused its market dominance by illegally inducing PC manufacturers to use its chips over those of rival AMD (AMD).

“The Commission finds that Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process,” Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, said at a news conference announcing the fine. “Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise.”

And after all, it could have been worse. The $1.45 billion assessment is quite a bit less than the maximum fine the EC could have levied–10 percent of a company’s annual revenue. Given that Intel made $37.6 billion in 2008, the EC could have slapped it with a penalty of $4 billion.

Intel denied any wrongdoing and said it would appeal. “Intel takes strong exception to this decision,” CEO Paul Otellini said in a statement released immediately after the announcement. “We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace–characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal. We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not.”

By “clarity,” Microsoft means an annulment of the EC’s February decision imposing the fine–the highest ever meted out in an antitrust case. But it’s not likely to get it. At least according to the EC. Said an EC spokesperson: “The commission is confident that its decision to impose the fine is legally sound.”

Translation: No. How’s that for “clarity”?

In a complete reversal of earlier policy, the software giant has decided to make IE8 default to a standards-compliant mode of rendering Web pages that favors interoperability, rather than an IE7 rendering mode that favors Microsoft (MSFT). “Microsoft recently published a set of Interoperability Principles,” Internet Explorer General Manager Dean Hachamovitch wrote in a post to the IEBlog. “Thinking about IE8’s behavior with these principles in mind, interpreting Web content in the most standards-compliant way possible is a better thing to do. We think that acting in accordance with principles is important, and IE8’s default is a demonstration of the interoperability principles in action.”

Quite the change of heart. Guess a record $1.35 billion in antitrust fines changes your perspective on these things. Certainly, Hachamovitch implies as much in his post. Writes Hachamovitch, “While we do not believe any current legal requirements would dictate which rendering mode a browser must use, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue.”

It certainly does. And if you don’t believe Hachamovitch, just ask Brad Smith, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel. He said exactly the same thing, using exactly the same words in a company press release announcing IE8’s Web standards compliance.

This morning the EC slapped the software giant with another $1.35 billion in fines for failing to comply with its 2004 antitrust order. “Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision,” European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes said. “I hope that today’s decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft’s record of noncompliance with the commission’s March 2004 decision and that the principles confirmed by the Court of First Instance ruling of September 2007 will govern Microsoft’s future conduct.”

The fine is the largest the EU has ever imposed against a single company in an antitrust case and brings Microsoft’s total European antitrust tab to about $2.5 billion, in current exchange rates. Quite a sum, to be sure. But for Microsoft, one that could easily come out of the “Found Beneath Bill Gates’s Couch Cushions” fund. Said Jeremy Allison, co-creator of the open-source workgroup file-and-print-server software Samba, “That’s not a fine, that’s just a way of getting their attention.”

In a statement, Microsoft said it was “reviewing the commission’s actions,” adding that the fine concerned past issues it thought had been resolved. “As we demonstrated last week with our new interoperability principles and specific actions to increase the openness of our products, we are focusing on steps that will improve things for the future,” the company said.

But Kroes wasn’t having any of it. “Talk, as you know, is cheap,” she said this morning. “We don’t want talk and promises.”