“We’re extremely pleased to have Doug join the Intel team,” said Intel CEO Paul Otellini. “His breadth of experience and legal expertise combined with his background in government are an outstanding fit for us.”

Melamed’s appointment must be quite a relief for Otellini and Intel, which, as I’ve noted here before, is grappling with some of the most important legal issues the company has ever faced.

No wonder it was a blowout quarter.

After market close Monday, Apple reported a fiscal fourth-quarter profit of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 a share, on revenue of $9.87 billion. That topped the estimates of analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters, who’d expected the company to earn $1.42 a share on revenue of $9.2 billion.

The company sold 3.05 million Macs during the quarter, a 17 percent increase over last year. It sold 10.2 million iPods, an eight percent decline from the year-ago quarter.

And iPhones? Apple (AAPL) sold 7.4 million of those–seven percent more than during the same period last year. So much for those supply-chain issues that some analysts warned might undermine iPhone sales.

“We are thrilled to have sold more Macs and iPhones than in any previous quarter,” said CEO Jobs. “We’ve got a very strong lineup for the holiday season and some really great new products in the pipeline for 2010.” [Editor's Note: "...really great new products"--is that code for a tablet?]

Apple shares, which closed at $189.86 today, are spiking as I write this. At $203.90, they’re up more than seven percent in extended trading.

Looking ahead to its fiscal first quarter, Apple estimates it will earn between $1.70 and $1.78 a share on revenue in a range of $11.3 billion to $11.6 billion. That’s comically lower than the $1.91 a share on $11.45 billion in sales that analysts are forecasting. But as today’s results clearly demonstrate, Apple subscribes to the underpromise-and-over-deliver school of guidance theory, so there’s likely little cause for concern.

So, to recap: Apple sold more Macs and more iPhones than in any previous quarter in the company’s history. Before the holiday quarter. And in midst of the worst economy we’ve seen in 50 years.

Notes From the Earnings Call:

• Apple COO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer are handling the earnings call. CEO Steve Jobs will not be attending.
• Oppenheimer says this was Apple’s second-highest quarterly revenue ever. Highest-ever operating margin. “We are thrilled with these record-breaking results, particularly given the economic environment around us.” Obviously.
• Macs are showing “fantastic momentum,” says Oppenheimer. Sales have outpaced the market in 19 of the past 20 quarters. Quarterly sales were up 17 percent; portable sales, 35 percent. Interesting: 42 percent growth in Asia.
• Moving on to iPods: Sales were down to 10.2 million from 11 million a year ago. But iPod touch sales doubled. MP3 market share in the U.S. is now more than 70 percent (according to NPD, I think).
• iPhone sales were up seven percent. Apple will begin selling iPhones in China later this month. More than 85,000 apps in App Store. Two billion downloads.
• Apple opened 15 new stores during the quarter. Now has 273. Will soon open first two stores in France, including one at the Louvre.
• Moving on to the Q&A. Asked about those iPhone 3GS supply issues I mentioned earlier, Cook acknowledges that demand did outstrip supply in a number of countries. But the situation improved “markedly” in September. How are things looking for China? Cook: “I would have liked to have had more, honestly, because we were still short in some countries at the end of the quarter.”
• Apple is obviously very excited about the iPhone’s impending debut in China. “There’s a good opportunity, and we’re really excited to get started,” says Cook. “It’s the largest market in the world in terms of total phones.”
• No comment on the broader economy. “We just spend our time projecting our business and leave the economy to the economists.”
• Does Apple worry about iPhone rivals? Android? Not really, says Cook. “We feel very good about suiting up and competing against anyone.” Our competitors are still trying to catch up with the first iPhone, he adds.
• Snow Leopard? Cook says the company’s been “pleasantly surprised” by sales of Apple’s latest OS.
• How does Apple benefit from carrier-exclusivity iPhone deals? Cook says carriers with exclusivity deals are willing to invest more in the platform and that means greater innovation. Visual voicemail is an example of that. That said, he adds, “We’ve found no lack of people wanting to sell iPhones, frankly.”
• International store revenue up more than 20 percent, on average.
• More on iPhone supply issues. Cook insists this is not a component issue, though he notes that silicon can sometimes be hard to get. “We feel good about our position now.”
• And still more on iPhone supply issues: How many iPhones would Apple have sold if it had an adequate supply? Impossible to say, really, Cook says, adding that 3GS units were in short supply virtually everywhere in September.
• Enterprise demand for the iPhone is very strong. It’s either being deployed or already in use at some 50 percent of Fortune 100 companies. Same with Europe and the FT 100. Widely used in higher ed and government as well.
• But perhaps not widely enough. Asked about institutional sales, Cook says Apple isn’t seeing much stimulus funding. The company’s worried about state spending. Says Cook, “We may see more this quarter, but it’s too early to tell.”

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.

Kai-Fu Lee’s uneventful departure from Google to start a Beijing incubator really belies the spectacle that attended the beginning of his tenure at the search giant.

Lee’s train-hopping from Microsoft (MSFT) to Google (GOOG) back in 2005 touched off a five-month pitched battle marked by all manner of inanities. Among them was this account of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s now-infamous alleged chair-tossing tantrum told by former Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Mark Lucovsky:

Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure…At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.

At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “F–king Eric Schmidt is a f–king p–sy. I’m going to f–king bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to f–king kill Google.”

Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay…Among other things, Mr. Ballmer told me that “Google’s not a real company. It’s a house of cards.”

And there were others as well. Certainly, the sourcing of some of Microsoft’s legal docs was amusing. As I wrote at the time:

Kai-Fu Lee may be a top-drawer research engineer, but his understanding of the mechanics of Microsoft’s desktop environment leaves a bit to be desired. Turns out Microsoft recovered Lee’s employment contract with Google, which figures prominently in its suit against the search leader (see “And, if you’re beaten by Microsoft thugs, our generous health plan will cover you”), from the “recycle bin” of one of Lee’s computers. Odd that Lee would choose to browse offers from his employer’s rivals on his work computer. Odder still that having done so, he would neglect to scrub them with a secure erase program. Clearly, he must have been a bit lightheaded after learning of Google’s promise to allow his stock options in the company to vest even if he was unable to start work for a year.

Then there was Lee’s testimony about a meeting with Bill Gates, during which the Microsoft chairman blew his top, shouting that the Chinese people and the Chinese government had “f—ked” Microsoft.

And, finally, there were the videotaped depositions, like one from Ballmer that included this great bit:

Ballmer: “Kai-Fu had a–a distinct commitment and responsibility on behalf of the company for being the senior executive here in Redmond, with responsibility for godfathering, shepherding all of our R&D activities in China. It’s a structure we also use for India. We have a senior executive with knowledge of India be the R&D godfather for India, encourage work to go there, shepherd, and–and mentor people in the area. Kai-Fu had that broad, important responsibility for China.”

Deposing lawyer: “This term, ‘godfather’–is that an official title within the Microsoft organization?”

Hard to believe Kai-Fu Lee’s tenure at Google China ended with such a whimper, although there are many quiet rumblings of trouble he had with Google’s top execs in Silicon Valley, given the bang it began with.

But it did. And here endeth the history lesson.

Sources say Apple has formally requested a network access license to sell the iPhone in China, but the license is for a customized model in which Wi-Fi support has been disabled. If that proves true, then Apple (AAPL) has finally bowed to the demands of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, which has been insisting that the iPhone run only on cellular networks.

As Matt Mathison, an analyst at Wedge Partners, notes, that’s a hell of a concession for Apple, which had no desire to customize the iPhone for the mainland market. “Apple was hellbent on having the iPhone be wifi-enabled,” Mathison told BusinessWeek. “The Chinese government has been just as adamant that it not be.”

Mathison added that now that Apple has conceded to Beijing’s demands, the iPhone may launch in China as much as three months earlier than expected. “We now expect it to come before the Spring Festival in [January] 2010,” he said.

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.

Almost, but not quite.

The 30-day review period for the $7.4 billion deal was set to expire midnight Friday. But instead of approving it, the DOJ extended its examination, issuing a second request for more information. Seems the government has some questions about Java and the way in which it is licensed.

In a statement released late Friday, Daniel Wall, a lawyer at Latham & Watkin, the firm representing Oracle, said that “we were almost able to resolve everything before the Second Request deadline. All that’s left is one narrow issue about the way rights to Java are licensed that is never going to get in the way of the deal.”

Never going to get in the way of the deal?

Well, it already has, hasn’t it? And while Oracle insists the extension of the investigation won’t delay the closing of the deal this summer, this additional 11th-hour scrutiny of Java isn’t exactly encouraging. After all, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has said that Java is “the single most important software asset we have ever acquired.”

“According to complaints from many residents, Google’s English language search engine has spread large amounts of vulgar content that is lascivious and pornographic, seriously violating China’s relevant laws and regulations,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regularly scheduled news conference. “I’d like to stress that google.com, as an Internet enterprise providing services in China, should earnestly abide by Chinese laws and regulations.”

The disruption of Google (GOOG) services follows a widely criticized mandate from Beijing requiring all computers sold in the country to include Green Dam, an application designed to prevent citizens from viewing “offensive” content, which in the Chinese government’s case includes all manner of material. From a report by the Open Net Initiative, an academic consortium dedicated to the study of censorship and surveillance:

The version of the Green Dam software that we tested, when operating under its default settings, is far more intrusive than any other content control software we have reviewed. Not only does it block access to a wide range of web sites based on keywords and image processing, including porn, gaming, gay content, religious sites and political themes, it actively monitors individual computer behavior, such that a wide range of programs including word processing and email can be suddenly terminated if content algorithm detects inappropriate speech. The program installs components deep into the kernel of the computer operating system in order to enable this application layer monitoring. The operation of the software is highly unpredictable and disrupts computer activity far beyond the blocking of websites.

…The deeply intrusive nature of the software opens up several possibilities for use other than filtering material harmful to minors. With minor changes introduced through the auto-update feature, the architecture could be used for monitoring personal communications and Internet browsing behavior. Log files are currently recorded locally on the machine, including events and keywords that trigger filtering. The auto-update feature can used to change the scope and targeting of filtering without any notification to users.

We absolutely will offer MMS on iPhone 3G S in the late summer, once we complete some system upgrades that will ensure our customers have the best experience with MMS. These upgrades are unrelated to our 3G network. … We plan to offer a tethering plan but we don’t have anything to announce today.

– AT&T spokesperson Seth Bloom

Welcome news for folks who love the iPhone, but hate AT&T. The increasing prevalence of exclusivity agreements between wireless carriers and cellphone manufacturers, like the one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T), is drawing some government scrutiny. Four U.S. senators are urging the Federal Communications Commission to review such deals with an eye toward determining whether they unfairly restrict consumer choice and hamper competition. In a letter, the four asked that the Commission specifically consider the following:

• Whether exclusivity agreements are becoming increasingly prevalent between dominant wireless carriers and handset manufacturers

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements are restricting consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumer’s geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements place limitations on a consumer’s ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to “tether” a device to a computer for Internet use.

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements are manipulating the competitive marketplace between commercial wireless carriers. Specifically, whether the ability for a dominant carrier to reach an exclusive agreement with a handset manufacturer is inhibiting the ability of smaller, more regional carriers to compete

 

• Whether exclusivity agreements play a role in encouraging or discouraging innovation within the handset marketplace

An interesting list and one that seems to single out AT&T, though it doesn’t mention the carrier by name. Indeed, limiting “a consumer’s ability to take full advantage of handset technologies, such as the ability to send multimedia messages or the ability to ‘tether’ a device to a computer for Internet use” is exactly what AT&T will do later this week when the iPhone 3G S and iPhone OS 3.0 debut without the carrier’s support for their new tethering and MMS capabilities.

And then there’s this: The iPhone 3G S is compatible with high-speed packet access 7.2 technology, which offers theoretical peak download speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps. But AT&T doesn’t plan to begin deploying HSPA 7.2 until later this year and the company doesn’t expect to complete the rollout until 2011.

Finally, the company’s refusal to sell the iPhone in rural areas where it provides only roaming coverage certainly restricts “consumer choice with respect to which handsets are available depending on a consumer’s geographic region, particularly for consumers living in rural America.”

Clearly, if the senators responsible for this letter were looking for a case study for the problems with exclusive carrier-device agreements, they’ve got one ready-made in AT&T.

Many people have a false impression that the Chinese government fears the Internet. In fact, it is just the opposite.”

–Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang

If China wants to correct the “false impression” that it fears the Internet, ending its paranoid blocking of Web services would be a good place to start. This morning, Beijing extended the Great Firewall of China, restricting Internet access to Twitter, Flickr, Hotmail and Bing, among others. As confirmation of this, Herdict–a Harvard University site that monitors Internet accessibility–shows a spike in reports claiming that Twitter is inaccessible in China this morning.

The Wall Street Journal’s China Journal reports similarly.

The move–presumably part of the Chinese government’s efforts to censor media ahead of the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre this Thursday–was more an inevitability than anything else. Like YouTube and blogging services WordPress and Blogger, Twitter provides Chinese citizens with an outlet for dissent and self-expression, things for which the Chinese government has a profound distaste.

So, it comes as little surprise that the repressive government in Beijing has blocked it. It did the same thing to YouTube back in March.

“It’s just part of life here,” said Beijing-based Twitterer Kaiser Kuo. “If anything surprises me, it’s that it took them so long.” 

I have a request for comment in to Twitter and will update if/when I hear back.

Though Windows 7 is expected at market by the end of the year, the United States military has set that as a deadline for its migration from Windows XP to the “worthy, but largely unexciting” Windows Vista and from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

The Army has been testing Vista since 2006 and its decision to move forward with a migration of its 744,000 desktops–on both classified and unclassified networks–was apparently driven by the OS’s improved security. “First, they see real value in Windows Vista’s improved security architecture,” Microsoft senior director Gavriella Schuster said in a statement. “Second, it shows large organizations have unique needs and timetables for deployment. These things take time–they have been rigorously testing internally–and it makes sense that they have approached deployment in a measured and well-planned way, especially given the number of seats they are migrating to Windows Vista.”

It’s not clear what activities are at issue here, but if they’re found to be in violation of the FCPA, Sun (JAVA) could be in a for a rough time of it. As the company itself notes, “The FCPA and related statutes and regulations provide for potential monetary penalties, criminal sanctions and in some cases debarment from doing business with the U.S. federal government in connection with FCPA violations, any of which could have a material effect on our business.”

Also disclosed in the filing: three class action suits seeking to block Oracle’s $7.4 billion acquisition of the company. “Three putative shareholder class action were filed by individual shareholders on April 20, 2009, April 30, 2009 and April 30, 2009, respectively, in Santa Clara County Superior Court naming Sun and certain of our officers and directors, as well as Oracle Corporation, as defendants,” Sun explains. “The complaints, which are similar, seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Sun by Oracle Corporation and allege claims for breach of fiduciary against the individual defendants and for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the corporate defendants. The complaints generally allege that the consideration offered in the proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate. Sun and the other defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.”

Wonder what Oracle (ORCL) will make of all this?

Sure. Assuming Caprio can convince the state’s Twittering citizenry to actually follow “RITreasury.”

With updates like:

“Real-time cash-flow numbers for Friday, April 03: General Fund Receipts: $28,535,335 … General Fund Expenditures: $31,461,897,”

that could prove more difficult than resolving the fiscal crisis…

As Google (GOOG) notes, there’s no formal explanation yet for the block, though it may be in response to a seven-minute video posted to YouTube last week showing Chinese soldiers brutally beating Tibetans last March after the riots in Lhasa. China, after all, isn’t renowned for its tolerance of free expression or dissident speech. Remember, animated beat cops patrol the nation’s 13 top portals, warning citizens away from material the ruling Communist Party finds politically or morally threatening.

Asked to comment on the block, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang claimed Beijing was unaware of it. “Many people have a false impression that the Chinese government fears the Internet. In fact it is just the opposite,” he told reporters. “China’s Internet is open enough, but also needs to be regulated by law in order to prevent the spread of harmful information and for national security.”