• Orphan works–books whose copyright holders are unknown–will be overseen by an independent trustee who will administer their licensing, not by Google.
• Books published outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia will be excluded from the settlement.

Those are substantive alterations, but they clearly haven’t placated critics who accuse Google (GOOG) of attempting an “end-run around copyright law as we know it.”

The Open Book Alliance–a coalition whose members include the Internet Archive, Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO)–has blasted the revision twice already, decrying it as “a sleight of hand” intended to distract people from Google’s continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution.

“The proposed changes fail to address this deal’s fundamental flaws,” Open Book Alliance Co-Chair Gary Reback said in a vitriolic statement. “Despite Google’s effort to spin this deal, it does nothing to promote competition nor does it reform Google’s exclusive access and monopoly hold on this digital database of books. Their proposed ‘unclaimed works fiduciary’ will have zero authority to promote competition or expand access. It is a cynical diversion away from the parties’ continued reliance on the discredited argument that competitors can obtain access through the very means Google did–getting sued for copyright infringement and abusing the class action process. This deal remains rife with anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

“After Gateway’s 2004 merger with eMachines, AMD attempted to revive the relationship it had enjoyed with Gateway until 2001, but experienced extremely limited success. While Gateway built one AMD-powered desktop model at the request of Circuit City, AMD remains locked out entirely of Gateway’s direct internet sales, its commercial offerings and its server line. According to Gateway executives, their Company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has beaten them into ‘guacamole’ in retaliation.”

– Excerpt from AMD’s 2005 complaint against Intel

Looks like it’s going to be a very busy fall for Intel legal. This morning, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the company, alleging that it violated state and federal laws with a “systematic campaign” of illegal conduct to maintain its monopoly.

At issue here, once again, is Intel’s alleged practice of using bribery and coercion to maintain its monopoly, something rival AMD complained about in its own antitrust suit against Intel (INTC) in 2005.

AMD (AMD) alleged, for example, that in 2000, Michael Capellas, then chief executive of Compaq Computer, told AMD that because of Compaq’s relationship with AMD, Intel withheld the delivery of some microprocessors he needed for servers. Capellas told AMD he would stop buying from it, saying he “had a gun to his head.”

Further, 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. 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.

Apparently, Cuomo has found evidence of similar behavior. “Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

But perhaps those restrictions were better left in place. Because on Thursday, the DOJ opened a preliminary investigation into IBM’s business practices, seeking to determine if the company has abused its monopoly position in the mainframe market. The inquiry stems from a complaint filed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association that claims IBM (IBM) has undermined sales of competing mainframe hardware products by refusing to license its mainframe operating system and certain other intellectual property.

“IBM has used its power to resurrect and create a formidable set of barriers in the mainframe market by their misuse of intellectual property,” CCIA CEO Edward J. Black, told the New York Times. “Once IBM walls are taken down by the government enforcing the law, there will be a rush of people looking to get part of this marketplace.”

Perhaps. Certainly that’s not really the case now. As the CCIA and T3 Technologies–which filed an antitrust complaint against IBM in Europe earlier this year for similar reasons–would argue, IBM has essentially left the industry with a single mainframe vendor: itself. And if that sounds like an exaggeration, consider this: A few years back, a company called Platform Solutions attempted to license IBM’s mainframe software. IBM refused and then sued Platform, accusing it of a raft of IP-related violations. Platform countersued. And then, in 2008, IBM acquired the company and promptly shut down its operations.

“For decades, IBM licensed its system software and intellectual property to other computer manufacturers,” T3 president Steven Friedman said earlier this year. “However, for no reason other than to remove all competition from the mainframe market, IBM eliminated programs to allow customers to buy its mainframe software for use on non-IBM mainframe solutions….[Now] only IBM…offers IBM- compatible mainframes and, based on IDC reports, controls over 99% of all existing IBM-compatible mainframes in use today.”

“I’m absolutely of the opinion that this is a trustful deal that we’re making. I trust Microsoft,” Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said during a press conference this morning. “There can’t be a misunderstanding. Here is the final result of a long discussion over a long period.”

Microsoft (MSFT) was equally upbeat on the EC’s decision. “We welcome today’s announcement by the European Commission to move forward with formal market testing of Microsoft’s proposal relating to web browser choice in Europe,” General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. “We also welcome the opportunity to take the next step in the process regarding our proposal to promote interoperability with a broad range of our products.”

There were, however, a few that were not so welcoming of the move. Top among them, ECIS, an industry group whose members include Oracle (ORCL), Sun (JAVA), IBM (IBM) and Nokia (NOK). “ECIS notes that the settlement does not appear to deal with the inadequacies of Microsoft’s standards compliance, unfair pricing practices or other concerns related to patent abuse or standards manipulation,” the group said in a statement.

Bing’s share of the search market leaped to 10.7 percent in August, from nine percent in July–a month-over-month increase of of 22.1 percent. Meanwhile, Google’s (GOOG) share grew to 64.6 percent–a month-over-month increase of of 2.6 percent. And Yahoo (YHOO) lost share to its new partner, falling 1.1 percent to 16 percent, a month-over-month decline of 4.2 percent. (Click on table below to enlarge.)

Which makes Bing the fastest-growing search outfit around, with a growth rate more than eight times greater than Google’s. Quite an achievement given Google’s de facto monopoly over search and the fact that Bing launched just a few months ago. Clearly, Microsoft’s new offering is picking up momentum despite Google’s repeated dismissals of it.

“Microsoft has announced a Google killer search product about once a year for the past six years,” Google CEO Eric Schmidt said of Bing after it debuted. “And they need to offer a better product than the one they did last year. I think it’s too early to say with Bing how well it will do. They have some advantages because of the Windows monopoly where they can encourage people–in our view unfairly–to use Bing, but let’s see what the end users choose. We always start from the premise ‘what do the end users want’ and we continue to find in our studies that what Google offers is what they want.”

Yeah, until someone comes along and offers them something better.

“The settlement would alter the landscape of copyright law, for millions and millions of rights holders of out-of-print books,” Peters said. “It would flip copyright on its head by allowing Google to engage in extensive new uses without the consent of the copyright owner–in my view, making a mockery of Article One of the Constitution, that anticipates that authors shall be granted exclusive rights.”

The settlement, as Peters sees it, will allow Google (GOOG) to profit from the work of others without prior consent. “It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come,” she said. “In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court.”

One of the more blistering attacks on the deal to date, especially given its source: The nation’s top copyright official. But Google nevertheless dismissed it as unfounded: “We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well within the guidelines of what you can do in a class action settlement,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said during the hearing. “It certainly is not usurping Congress’s authority to do whatever it wants.”

A typically arrogant response from Google, though the company does appear to be conceding a bit of ground in the face of widening opposition to the deal. Responding to Peters’s criticism and claims that the deal will essentially grant Google a de facto monopoly over out-of-print books, Drummond said the company plans to make those works available to any book retailer.

“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” Drummond told the committee. “Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any internet-connected device they choose.”

Sadly for Google, that conciliatory gesture did not go over well with critics of the deal. “The Internet has never been about intermediation,” Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, said of the company’s offer. “We are happy to work with rights holders without anyone else’s help.”

The Internet Archive’s Peter Brantley was even more disdainful. “I fail to see what’s really new here,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s like Macy’s telling Sears, ‘You can sell Macy’s clothing.’ There’s no fundamental change of the conditions under which Macy’s acquires those clothes. Google remains in control.”

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.

“The mass digitization of books promises to bring tremendous value to consumers, libraries, scholars, and students,” the Alliance says in its mission statement. “The Open Book Alliance will work to advance and protect this promise. And, by protecting it, we will assert that any mass book digitization and publishing effort be open and competitive. The process of achieving this promise must be undertaken in the open, grounded in sound public policy and mindful of the need to promote long-term benefits for consumers rather than isolated commercial interests. The Open Book Alliance will counter Google, the Association of American Publishers and the Authors’ Guild’s scheme to monopolize the access, distribution and pricing of the largest digital database of books in the world. To this end, we will promote fair and flexible solutions aimed at achieving a more robust and open system.”

Rallying behind that cry is an array of nonprofit author groups, library institutions, and Google (GOOG) rivals that includes the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the New York Library Association, Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) and Amazon (AMZN), which only confirmed its membership in the Alliance today. All of these participants fear that the Google Book Search Settlement, which will restore access to millions of out-of-print books, could one day give the company a monopoly on the largest digital library in the world.

With a Sept. 4 deadline for submissions to the court reviewing the settlement approaching, we’re likely to hear increasingly more cries that the settlement is bad for consumers, libraries, schools, authors and publishers.

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 –

Not so difficult, apparently. As I noted yesterday, early data from market researcher comScore (SCOR) show Bing boosting Microsoft’s share of the search market to 11.1 percent from 9.1 percent since May 26.

Anyway…

Schmidt’s remarks recall a CNN interview he did earlier this month in the aftermath of Bing’s debut. Then as now, the Google CEO went to great lengths to tar Microsoft and its search products. “Microsoft has announced a Google killer search product about once a year for the past six years,” Schmidt said at the time. “And they need to offer a better product than the one they did last year. I think it’s too early to say with Bing how well it will do. They have some advantages because of the Windows monopoly where they can encourage people–in our view unfairly–to use Bing, but let’s see what the end users choose. We always start from the premise ‘what do the end users want’ and we continue to find in our studies that what Google offers is what they want.”

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.”