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.”

A few of these will be what Apple (AAPL) refers to as “significant stores,” outlets that are striking in both appearance and location. With its 45-foot tall stone walls, vast glass ceiling and beacon that some say is “brighter than anything on Broadway,” the Upper West Side store certainly qualifies as that–as does Apple’s newly opened store at the Louvre in Paris.

Given their architecture and locales, these “significant stores” come with some equally significant expenses. But evidently, they’re worth it. According to Ron Johnson, Apple’s senior vice president of retail, annual revenue per store is now around $26 million. Altogether, Apple’s stores posted revenue of $1.87 billion in the September quarter, nine percent more than last year and their highest level ever.

[Image Credit: Matt Buchanan/Gizmodo, Flickr]

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.”

In remarks made during AMD Financial Analyst Day, CEO Dirk Meyer said that Intel’s (INTC) current legal woes “ratify” AMD’s (AMD) allegations.

“We’ve said for a long time that our success in the marketplace was hampered by anticompetitive behavior on the part of Intel,” Meyer said. “And over the last 12 months that we’ve seen our statements ratified by regulators around the world….I’m looking forward to a future in which our ability to succeed as a business is really determined by the quality of our products and customer relationships. And I can tell you that hasn’t always been true.”

“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.”

An interesting variation on the “membership drive” and one that’s gotten Tagged in hot water with New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who intends to sue the company “for deceptive e-mail marketing practices and invasion of privacy.”

“This company stole the address books and identities of millions of people,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologize to all their e-mail contacts for Tagged’s unethical–and illegal–behavior. This very virulent form of spam is the online equivalent of breaking into a home, stealing address books and sending phony mail to all of an individual’s personal contacts. We would never accept this behavior in the real world, and we cannot accept it online.”

Tagged, for its part, claims this is all just a big misunderstanding. In a statement of its own, the company denied abusing its users’ personal address books, saying, essentially, it had their consent to do so.

“When our company tested a new registration process, we discovered that our ‘invite your friends’ language was confusing,” said Tagged CEO Greg Tseng. “…In no instance did Tagged access a person’s personal address book without their consent and no emails were sent without the person giving us permission. We realize that some were confused and accidentally agreed to invite their friends.”

Oh, and next time you register for a social network, be sure to read its Terms of Service–especially the portions that are presented in ALL CAPS. They might be important. From Tagged’s Terms of Service:

“E) Notice Regarding Commercial Email

MEMBERS CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES FROM TAGGED, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE USED BY TAGGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES.”

In an investment note issued this morning, Munster estimated that the company sold 750,000 iPhones over the weekend–25 percent fewer than the one million units of the iPhone 3G model Apple sold during the launch of that device last July, but 50 percent more than the 500,000 he originally predicted.

“The only true benchmark for judging the launch of the iPhone 3G S will be the time it takes Apple to sell 1 million units. Apple sold 1 million 1st generation iPhones in 74 days and 1 million iPhone 3G units in 3 days. We are uncertain whether or not Apple will announce the 1 millionth iPhone 3G S; regardless, we are increasingly confident in our 5 million iPhone unit estimate for the June 09 quarter following the price drop of the iPhone 3G from $199 to $99 in early June and the launch for the iPhone 3G S, where interest in the device surpassed our expectations.”

A few other points worth noting from Munster’s note. The analyst surveyed 256 customers at Apple (AAPL) stores in New York and Minneapolis over the weekend about their preferred OS, the size of the iPhone they were purchasing and the phones from which they were upgrading, among other things (see table below; click to enlarge). In the 256, he found a mix of 66 percent Mac users and 34 percent PC, similar to what he found last year (61 percent Mac, 39 percent PC).

Of those surveyed, 43 percent purchased the high-end 32-gigabyte iPhone 3GS, less than the 66 percent of buyers who purchased the 16GB iPhone 3G last year. And 56 percent were upgrading from an old iPhone–up from 38 percent last year. “We believe this shows Apple is developing brand loyalty not enjoyed by other mobile phone makers,” Munster notes.

“At the outset of the company’s iPhone initiative, one of Apple’s goals was to develop the kind of brand loyalty it has developed among Mac and iPod customers, and we believe they are succeeding thus far. As the footprint expands, and loyalty expands as well, Apple will increasingly enjoy a base of customers who regularly upgrade to the newest version of the mobile phones the company releases in what appears to be an annual cycle.”

“iPhone 3G S Available at AT&T Tomorrow.” That’s the title of the press release that just landed in my inbox–even as lines form outside Apple (AAPL) Stores in New York City and Tokyo (above). Never hurts to state the obvious, I suppose.

Below, something to tide you early adopters over until tomorrow: A video from AT&T (T) showing the device being prepped for the big day.

[Image credit: +D Mobile]

While Comcast (CMCSA) had forecast a slowing of subscriber growth in its second quarter, the decline it’s now seeing is far worse than expected. “It is across all units,” said Roberts. We’re really not seeing a surging of disconnects. We’re just not seeing a surging of orders.”

Is that entirely econalypse-related? Or might it be due to competitive pressure from telcos? Roberts conceded that the market is an “intensely competitive one, but said Comcast has really just been dragged down by the souring economy. “I think there’s a general slowing of consumer expectations….” he said. “There are fewer opportunities to sell things.”

Ancient history, I suppose. But perhaps worth thinking about in light of OpenTable’s rather astonishing IPO last week. Originally priced at between $12 and $14, shares in the company were instead listed at $20. They opened at $24.50 and then spiked to $33 before closing at $31.81. A 59 percent surge on the first day of trading. For a company whose business is built on the recession-brutalized fine-dining industry? Impressive. Must have made for quite a windfall for OpenTable’s’s larger investors. Especially those who took the opportunity to dump their stakes in the company. Charles Schwab (SCHW), Pacific Asset Partners, W Capital Partners, Venture Frogs, Zagat and a number of small private investors sold off all their OpenTable shares as part of the company’s IPO (click on chart below), according to the SEC filing.

Interesting, yeah? Seems at least some of the company’s investors had been hoping for an exit. And they fled for it in unison, pockets full, when one was offered. Perhaps they’d lost their appetite for risk after reading through the Risk Factors section of Open Tables IPO filing, which grimly noted that “a significant majority of our restaurant customers are fine-dining restaurants which have been particularly affected by economic downturns such as the one we are currently experiencing.”

Or perhaps, like Scott Sweet, a senior managing partner at I.P.O. Boutique, they remember Foodline and the last dot-com bubble and bust. “People don’t truly know the story here about this company. It’s a one-trick pony company,” Sweet told the New York Times. “Pricier restaurants in San Francisco, Tampa, New York are not that hard to get in right now. In fact, one can do it themselves if they choose, with 15 minutes notice.”

If the Web has a single point of failure, you’d think it was Google, given the outcry over the the outages suffered by some of the company’s services Thursday. Something went wrong this morning and whatever it was had widespread effects on a broad spectrum of Google services–Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Google News, Blogger, Google Analytics, Google Docs. It outraged Twitter users and provided Microsoft’s (MSFT) Live Search team with no end of amusement. “Sympathies to the Google servers. Happens to everyone. But this is why the world needs more than one search engine,” it quipped in a tweet.

The source of the disruption? A system error that sent a bunch of Google (GOOG) Web traffic to Asia and waylaid about 14 percent of it, apparently.

This just in from the Google Blog:

“Imagine if you were trying to fly from New York to San Francisco, but your plane was routed through an airport in Asia. And a bunch of other planes were sent that way too, so your flight was backed up and your journey took much longer than expected. That’s basically what happened to some of our users today for about an hour, starting at 7:48 am Pacific time.

An error in one of our systems caused us to direct some of our web traffic through Asia, which created a traffic jam. As a result, about 14% of our users experienced slow services or even interruptions. We’ve been working hard to make our services ultrafast and ‘always on,’ so it’s especially embarrassing when a glitch like this one happens. We’re very sorry that it happened, and you can be sure that we’ll be working even harder to make sure that a similar problem won’t happen again. All planes are back on schedule now.”

“The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described.”

About as exciting as the original Kindle design it describes, but this isn’t a utility patent, so you can’t really expect much from it. That said, the reference citations it contains are interesting. Among the devices included: the iRex iLiad, the NUUTbook an early prototype of the One Laptop Per Child Foundation’s XO laptop and Apple’s MacBook Pro.

Note: Be sure to see the liveblog of the Amazon announcement in New York by MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka, starting at 10:30 a.m. EDT.

Gone are the days of the silly clock-speed race, the megahertz myth, “performance per watt” war and the great AMD (AMD)-Intel dual-core PR shootout. Now Intel wants us all to know that while it’s still “inside” our PCs, it’s outside them in a variety of other ways as well. “Many people take for granted what we as a company helped drive,” Intel spokesman David Dickstein told MarketWatch. “We’re hoping that we’re not just known as a microprocessor company, but as a move-society-by-quantum-leaps company.”