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.”

Seems AT&T (T) feels that Google’s Google Voice Internet call-forwarding service violates federal rules designed to ensure that phone companies connect all calls. From the company’s letter:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. Google casually dismisses the Bureau’s Order, claiming that Google Voice “isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers.” But in reality, “Google Voice” appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the Commission….

[The FCC] cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to [FCC] regulations.

AT&T’s letter comes just days after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality regulations that will apply to both wireline and wireless platforms. Interestingly, it also follows an FCC investigation into the rejection/delay of Google Voice for the iPhone.

UPDATE:

Google’s responded to AT&T’s letter in a post to the company blog, pointing out the differences between Google Voice and traditional phone service and questioning AT&T’s motives for appealing to the FCC.

“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly,” Richard Whitt, the company’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote. “The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

“The Commission has to examine very carefully the effects on competition in Europe when the world’s leading proprietary database company proposes to take over the world’s leading open source database company,” said Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. “In particular, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that customers would not face reduced choice or higher prices as a result of this takeover.”

In short, the Commission’s concern is with Sun’s open-source database, MySQL, and Oracle’s plans for it. A preliminary market investigation has shown “that the Oracle databases and Sun’s MySQL compete directly in many sectors of the database market and that MySQL is widely expected to represent a greater competitive constraint as it becomes increasingly functional,” the Commission explained. The “investigation has also shown that the open source nature of Sun’s MySQL might not eliminate fully the potential for anti-competitive effects.” So the Commission will dig a bit deeper to determine just how much incentive Oracle has to further develop MySQL as an open-source database.

A tough break for Oracle (ORCL), which now has to suffer through an EC probe scheduled to last until Jan. 19, one that increases the chances the company may have to divest some features of Sun’s (JAVA) business to get the deal done.

Oracle had hoped the acquisition would quickly pass muster with U.S. Department of Justice. But in late June the agency extended its review of the deal citing concerns over Java and the way in which it is licensed.

The EC seems to have some concerns as well, particularly over the combined company’s position in the database market. Bjorn Schotte, founder of software developer Mayflower GmbH, claims to have received a lengthy questionnaire from the Commission wondering about how his firm views the proposed merger, particularly its impact on MySQL. The letter reads, in part:

“As our investigation is a rather extensive and complex exercise, we would appreciate if you could send us, if possible, the contact details (company name, address, telephone number+fax+email address of a contact person) of companies that work with MySQL and Open Source products, and who could be willing to assist us in our investigation.

We would then send the questionnaires ourselves so we can more easily keep track of replies and double-check whether they might have already received our requests for information last week.”

Presumably, other firms have received the questionnaire as well. If they should give the EC cause to investigate, it could slow Oracle’s (ORCL) acquisition plans by as much as four months, a disappointment for a company that has repeatedly said it plans to close the Sun (JAVA) merger some time “this summer.”

People familiar with the matter tell Bloomberg that Apple’s handling of the matter remains under scrutiny and that company directors Art Levinson and Bill Campbell had been briefed by Jobs’s doctors on his medical condition at the time of the January disclosures, but little else.

Now, the path from “Steve is suffering from a common bug” to “a hormone imbalance has been robbing Steve of the proteins his body needs to be healthy” to “Steve has undergone a liver transplant” is obviously something of an eyebrow-raiser. But whether it was material to Apple’s business and therefore required disclosure isn’t clear. After all, Apple (AAPL) did just fine while Jobs was on sabbatical; the debut of new Macs, iPods and iPhones is testament to that. Beyond that, there’s this: Apple’s stock posted a 59 percent gain while he was away.

“The issue is not going to be whether they needed to disclose the medical records,” James Cox, a securities law professor at Duke University, told Bloomberg. “It’s going to be whether they monitored the disclosures about his health, in relation to investor expectations that Apple would continue to be led by Steven Jobs….[Apple] did fine. Do you need to say more than, ‘Our CEO has health problems and he’s out on leave?’ The question I think the SEC is looking at is whether it’s material.”

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 –

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.”

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?

This isn’t the first time Kohl has raised concerns about the long-term implications of Yahoo’s (YHOO) proposed deal with Google (GOOG). And it almost certainly won’t be the last. Back in September, he worried aloud that the partnership might reduce Yahoo to “nothing more than the newest satellite in the Google orbit.” And nothing much has changed since that time, except for Google’s increased advocacy of the deal on the new “Yahoo-Google Facts” site.

Google (GOOG), for its part, continues to claim its pact with Yahoo (YHOO) is beneficial to competition, and seems prepared to go through with it. “While there has been a lot of speculation about this agreement’s potential impact on advertisers or ad prices, we think it would be premature for regulators to halt the agreement before we implement it and everyone can judge the actual impact,” the company said after the Association of National Advertisers sent a letter to the Justice Department opposing it. Of course, the flip side of that is that it might be premature for Google to move ahead with the agreement before regulators say they’re comfortable with it. Said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Blair Levin, “it would be risky … to proceed if they are getting signals that the agency has serious concerns.”

At least that’s what China’s State Intellectual Property Office is claiming, anyway. This morning SIPO denied reports that it’s investigating Microsoft’s (MSFT) market position in the country. “The [State Intellectual Property] Office believes these reports are not real,” SIPO said in a statement. “The Office is authorized by the relevant government agencies to investigate and research domestic piracy issues. … The Office has never undertaken any market monopoly investigation, and has no plan to do so.”

A vehement denial. But one perhaps worth questioning, considering that a SIPO official confirmed the investigation to Agence France-Presse this morning: “Our departments are carrying out the investigation,” the official said. “We will release the findings later.”

In recent days the commission has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and a number of their PC-maker customers as part of a probe into Intel’s pricing policies, which some claim are engineered to maintain a near-monopoly on the chip market. Intel, which has long claimed that its business practices are well within U.S. law, did so again today in a statement announcing its cooperation with the FTC investigation. “The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling,” it said. “For example, prices for microprocessors declined by 42.4% from 2000 to the end of 2007. When competitors perform and execute, the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform, the market responds accordingly.”

But what if a competitor, say AMD, falters and underperforms because a rival is threatening its customers? What if it falters because a rival is using illegal inducements to dissuade PC-makers from buying AMD processors and “knee-capping” those who do? Which is what AMD accused Intel of in its 2005 antitrust lawsuit. In 2000, for example, Michael Capellas, then chief executive of Compaq Computer, allegedly told AMD that Intel had withheld the delivery of some microprocessors he needed for servers because of Compaq’s relationship with AMD. He told AMD he would stop buying from it, saying he “had a gun to his head.” And in 2004, Gateway officials are alleged to have told AMD that Intel “beat them into guacamole” in retaliation for their limited dealings with its rival. And these are but two incidents in a list that includes similar alleged acts of coercion by Intel involving 38 other computer makers, distributors and retailers.