Good day everyone … and thank you for joining us. For the past few years, we have been very open in outlining the major steps for AMD’s transformation into a processing powerhouse:

• From the acquisition of ATI Technologies;
• To the formation of GLOBALFOUNDRIES; and
• The creation of AMD-The Product Company,
  o with a single business unit,
  o a reinvigorated roadmap,
  o a new business model,
  o And a close relationship with a world-class leading-
  edge foundry.

Today, I am pleased to announce the last major component of that transformation–in the form of a transparent and public agreement with Intel to create a level playing field in the x86 processor industry–taking us one big step closer to achieving our bold vision.
There are three key components to the agreement:

• First, Intel has agreed to an important set of ground rules that we hope will define the path to a free and open market in the microprocessor industry;
• Second, we have agreed to a new patent cross-license agreement that gives AMD broad rights and the freedom to operate a business utilizing multiple foundries,
• And third, GLOBALFOUNDRIES has agreed to terms that allow them the freedom to operate as an independent world-class leading-edge foundry company, going forward, without being a subsidiary of AMD.

In addition, Intel has agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion.

Today marks the beginning of a new era… one that confirms that the game has changed for AMD. It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most important–for consumers and businesses worldwide. In addition, it represents the culmination many years of litigation and regulatory engagement.

And we are optimistic that it will usher a new era for our industry. We recognize that it will take time for people to understand how operating conditions in the processor business have changed–but make no mistake–they have changed.

I would like to thank the regulatory agencies around the world for their diligence and consistency. Their work has enabled us to achieve this milestone. We are optimistic they will continue their vigilance in maintaining a level playing field, especially with respect to exclusionary practices in our industry.

Looking forward to three keys to our continued success: Compelling offerings; Access to customers and channels, And a winning business model.

We are optimistic this agreement addresses concerns about customer and channel access and our business model. We look forward to healthy competition with the mutual respect one would expect between world-class competitors.

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.

And now this: eBay’s plans to spin off Skype next year are being threatened by a legal dispute over the telephony service’s underlying technology.

In a 10-Q regulatory filing Thursday, the online auctioneer said it is developing an alternative to that technology, which it licenses from Joltid, a company run by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, but there is no guarantee of success. And if it fails in that effort and its legal dispute with Joltid drags on, eBay could be forced to shutter Skype.

“Although Skype is confident of its legal position, as with any litigation, there is the possibility of an adverse result if the matter is not resolved through negotiation,” the company said. “Skype has begun to develop alternative software to that licensed through Joltid. However, such software development may not be successful, may result in loss of functionality or customers even if successful, and will in any event be expensive. If Skype was to lose the right to use the Joltid software as the result of the litigation, and if alternative software was not available, Skype would be severely and adversely affected and the continued operation of Skype’s business as currently conducted would likely not be possible.”

That doesn’t bode well for eBay’s plans to take Skype public in the first half of 2010. Though the company insists its plans to separate the telephony service have not changed, it’s clear that eBay (EBAY) must resolve these issues before moving ahead.

Certainly, it will be difficult to gin up investor interest in an IPO for a disabled service run by a company that spent billions of dollars to purchase it and failed to secure its underlying technology.

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.

The $200 million verdict is the second-largest patent jury award this year, the largest of all–coincidentally, I’m sure–being the $388 million verdict against Microsoft won by Singapore’s Uniloc in April over an infringement of its security technology. Then, as in the i4i case and most other patent rulings that haven’t gone its way, Redmond responded with incredulity, claiming it couldn’t have possibly infringed on the patent because the patent is invalid. “We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid,” said David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, in the company’s now boilerplate statement on such matters. “We believe this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported, so we will ask the court to overturn the verdict.”

The fourth was Yahoo’s first money-losing quarter since 2002, and the first time its revenue declined since the fourth quarter of 2001.

Said incoming CEO Carol Bartz, “The company also made important investments while aggressively managing costs, leaving us better positioned to weather the economic downturn and emerge stronger when advertiser spending improves. We have work to do, but I am excited by Yahoo!’s opportunities, and encouraged by the tremendous innovation and momentum I’ve seen since joining the company as CEO.”

Here’s the official release:

Yahoo! Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2008 Financial Results

“Despite the challenging economic environment, Yahoo! delivered adjusted operating cash flow above the midpoint of guidance for the fourth quarter,” said Yahoo! Chief Executive Officer Carol Bartz. “The company also made important investments while aggressively managing costs, leaving us better positioned to weather the economic downturn and emerge stronger when advertiser spending improves. We have work to do, but I am excited by Yahoo!’s opportunities, and encouraged by the tremendous innovation and momentum I’ve seen since joining the company as CEO.”

Fourth Quarter 2008 Financial Results

• Revenues were $1,806 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 1 percent decrease compared to $1,832 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues were $1,594 million for the fourth quarter of 2008 compared to $1,590 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues from Owned and Operated sites were $1,063 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 3 percent increase compared to $1,035 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues from Affiliate sites were $531 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 4 percent decrease compared to $555 million for the same period of 2007.
• Fees revenues were $212 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 12 percent decrease compared to $242 million for the same period of 2007.
• Revenues excluding traffic acquisition costs (“TAC”) were $1,375 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 2 percent decrease compared to $1,403 million for the same period of 2007.
• Operating loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $278 million compared to operating income of $191 million for the same period of 2007.
• Operating loss before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $60 million compared to operating income before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense of $527 million for the same period of 2007.
• Adjusted operating income before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $542 million, excluding restructuring charges of $108 million for severance, facilities, and other restructuring costs; a goodwill impairment charge of $488 million related to our international segment; and incremental costs of $7 million incurred for outside advisors related to Microsoft’s proposals to acquire all or a part of the Company, other strategic alternatives, including the Google agreement, the proxy contest, and related litigation defense (collectively, the “strategic alternatives and related matters”).
• Cash flow from operating activities for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $321 million, a 48 percent decrease compared to $622 million for the same period of 2007.
• Free cash flow for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $219 million, a 34 percent decrease compared to $330 million for the same period of 2007.
• Net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $303 million or $0.22 per diluted share compared to net income of $206 million or $0.15 per diluted share for the same period of 2007.
• Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $238 million or $0.17 per diluted share compared to non-GAAP net income of $184 million or $0.13 per diluted share for the same period of 2007.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Carol Bartz: The ALL CAPS CEO
• Yahoo Investors: We Would Have Preferred Steve Jobs…

Mr. Papermaster’s employment by Apple is a violation of his agreement with IBM against working for a competitor should he leave IBM. We will vigorously pursue this case in court.”

– IBM, October 2008

IBM’s legal efforts to enforce a noncompete agreement that would have prevented 26-year company veteran Mark Papermaster from jumping ship for a high-profile job at Apple appear to have failed. In a terse statement issued this morning, Apple (AAPL) said the litigation between IBM (IBM) and Mark Papermaster has been resolved. Come April 24, Papermaster will begin leading Apple’s iPod and iPhone hardware engineering teams as SVP of Devices Hardware Engineering, reporting to CEO Steve Jobs. He will, however, have to certify in July and October that he has complied with legal obligations and not used confidential IBM information at Apple. From IBM’s own release on the matter:

IBM and Mr. Papermaster have now agreed on a resolution of the lawsuit under which Mr. Papermaster may not begin employment with Apple until April 24, 2009, six months after leaving IBM, and will remain subject thereafter to all of his contractual and other legal duties to IBM, including the obligation not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential information. Following commencement of his employment with Apple, Mr. Papermaster will be required to certify, in July 2009 and again in October 2009, that he has complied with his legal obligations not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential or proprietary information. The preliminary injunction will be replaced by a court order under which the Court will have continuing jurisdiction over this matter, including compliance enforcement powers, until October 24, 2009, one year after Mr. Papermaster’s departure from IBM.”

At the time, anyway. A patent dispute with Applied Nanotech soon stalled SED TV’s commercial debut. Which was a nasty break for Canon. With a performance and picture quality said to be far higher than LCD or plasma, SED was vital to expanding the company’s presence in the digital living room, which, lets face it, never extended much beyond digital cameras and printers.

Well, Canon’s big plans for the digital television business are back on track again. Applied Nanotech has dropped its claims against the company, saying to continue litigation “would probably be a futile effort.” And that means Canon is now free to bring SED TVs to market, some three years after first announcing plans to do so. Question now is this: Is it three years too late? With LCD and plasma displays more affordable, SED has lost quite a bit of its competitive edge. And with a decline in TV prices prompting profit warnings from the likes of Sony (SNE) and Panasonic (PC), the TV business isn’t looking too inviting.

We filed this appeal in order to protect our legal rights and to challenge the basis on which the Commission found that Comcast violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable standards or rules. We continue to recognize that the Commission has jurisdiction over Internet service providers and may regulate them in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with appropriate procedures. However, we are compelled to appeal because we strongly believe that, in this particular case, the Commission’s action was legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record.”

As legally inappropriate and unjustifiable as Comcast (CMCSA) might find it, the cable company will abide by the FCC’s order during the appeal. And it will forge ahead with plans to develop more net neutrality-friendly network management techniques by the end of the year. Said Cohen, “We will follow through on our longstanding commitment to transition to protocol-agnostic network congestion management practices by the end of this year. We also remain committed to bringing our customers a superior Internet experience.”

Superior Internet experience until you hit that 250GB broadband cap, that is.

Plus, said Schmidt, Google’s attention is best focused where the real money is, or will be soon: mobile advertising. “We can make more in mobile than desktop, eventually,” Schmidt said. “The reason is because the mobile device is more targeted. Think about it: You carry your phone with you everywhere. It knows all about you. We can use that to do a very, very targeted ad. Over time, Google will make more money from mobile advertising.”

This week members of the House Judiciary Committee passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (called “PRO IP” groan…) Act of 2007, legislation that would create an “anti-piracy czar” at the White House level, a separate IP-enforcement division at the Justice Department and ratchet up already high civil penalties for copyright infringement.

The measure is backed by many of the most powerful politicians on the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers (D., Mich.), Lamar Smith (R., Texas) and “Hollywood” Howard Berman (D., Calif.), the content cartel and, of course, Zucker, who likes to tell everyone that it dramatically advances the cause of protecting innovation, technological invention and creativity.

Said Zucker, “This is such an important step in combating this incredibly serious piracy and counterfeiting problem that’s getting worse, not better.”

In Zucker’s eyes, maybe. But not in the eyes of consumer folks like Google Senior Copyright Counsel William Patry who calls Pro IP “the most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the U.S.” and consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge which feels it is in sore need of adjustment.:

This bill takes already extraordinary copyright damages and increases them, expanding the threat of litigation intended to stifle competition and innovation. … Increasing penalties is one of the least necessary, and quite possibly counterproductive, actions the committee could take, particularly when current law is adequate to deal with most infringement issues and because the higher penalties serve only to force faster and larger settlements potentially from innovators. … Instead of following the course of this bill, the committee should look to the future, to a more realistic and rational copyright regime that can adapt pre-VCR copyright laws to a post-YouTube world.”

Yesterday, Seagate (STX) filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing STEC Inc. (STEC), an early SSD maker, of patent infringement. In the suit, Seagate argues that STEC’s solid-state drive products violate four Seagate patents covering the ways those products communicate with a computer. The company requested an injunction and unspecified damages, which it asks be tripled if STEC is found guilty of willful infringement.

“The public perception has been that solid-state will take over the world and run disk makers out of business, but you can’t bring that product to market without licensing disk-drive technology,” said Seagate CEO Bill Watkins. “STEC infringes on a number of Seagate’s patents which are important to the entire industry. We thought they would have to learn how to do storage differently to avoid our patents, but they decided to go ahead and violate them. … We have spent $7 billion over the last 10 years to optimize how our disks work. This is the first lawsuit brought by a hard-disk company against a solid-state company. We are protecting the entire industry.”

That’s an altruistic way of looking at litigation that Watkins suggested in an interview in March was designed to protect Seagate’s own turf. After all, a Seagate victory in the suit could pave the way for cross-licensing agreements, not just with STEC, but with other SSD makers as well.