Odd to learn that Apple (AAPL) was considering such a move. After all, advertising isn’t exactly one of its core businesses, though it might have become one had it managed to buy AdMob, which is one of the largest sellers of advertisements on the iPhone.

“If a lot of traffic goes through my devices, why can’t I become the middleman that serves ads against that inventory?” said IDC analyst Karsten Weide. “AdMob would have allowed them to do that quickly.”

Indeed. If that’s what Apple wanted. And perhaps the company is interested in expanding into online advertising, as this “Advertising in Operating System” patent seems to suggest.

That said, it’s equally conceivable that Apple met with AdMob hoping to temper Google’s (GOOG) fast-expanding footprint in the mobile space and on the iPhone. With the acquisition of AdMob, the search sovereign is now the Internet’s largest mobile advertising company, with a dominant presence on the iPhone and any handset running its Android OS. Perhaps Apple’s intent was simply to make this a more costly endeavor for Google. But perhaps it was something more.

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.”

Today, the Finnish cellphone giant, which has been struggling to develop a worthy competitor to the iPhone, filed suit against Apple, claiming the popular smart phone infringes upon a number of Nokia patents.

Specifically at issue here: 10 patents covering various wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technologies. Nokia claims that every iPhone model shipped since 2007 has violated them.

“The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for,” said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of legal & intellectual property at Nokia (NOK). “Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree appropriate terms for Nokia’s intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.”

To that point, Nokia says it has entered into license agreements with about 40 companies for these patents. Only Apple (AAPL) has refused. The obvious endgame here, then, is to force the iPhone maker to change its mind.

“We believe that Nokia is not seeking an injunction; rather, we believe that the company has been in talks with Apple concerning a patent royalty payment for over a year,” Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said in a bulletin to clients. “With today’s announcement, it appears that the companies have not come to a resolution and Nokia is attempting to hasten the process. Nokia is likely looking to obtain a patent royalty of 1-2 percent ($6 to $12) on every iPhone sold in compensation for its IPs concerning GSM, 3G and WiFi technologies on mobile devices.”

Interesting that news of the suit comes just days after Apple announced its most successful financial quarter ever at a time when Nokia is posting nasty losses.

I’ve asked Apple for comment and will update here if I’m offered one.

This morning, the research and development company filed suit against nearly two dozen companies, accusing them of violating two of its patents–U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, the same one Microsoft allegedly ran afoul of, and No. 7,599,985, an extension of the 906 patent that covers embedded apps using AJAX. Among the companies named in the suit: Adobe (ADBE), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), eBay (EBAY), Google (GOOG)–including YouTube–Sun (JAVA) and Yahoo (YHOO).

“All we want is what’s fair,” Eolas Chairman Dr. Michael Doyle said in a statement. “We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else’s innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair.”

Sadly, “what’s fair” in this case threatens the very fabric of the Web, as Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web argued back in 2003 when Eolas was pursuing Microsoft (MSFT). “The ’906 patent will cause cascades of incompatibility to ripple through the Web,” Berners-Lee said in an appeal to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “[It] is a substantial setback for global interoperability and the success of the open Web.”

You see, DISH, though it had been barred from shipping DVRs with the patent-infringing functionality, continued to do so, justifying its behavior by claiming it had implemented a noninfringing workaround. But in June of this year, a court found that not to be the case. The court again reprimanded EchoStar (SATS) and ordered the company to pay TiVo (TIVO) $103 million in additional fines for the violations that occurred during the time in which the “workaround” was implemented. And now, it has added another $200 million to that.

TiVo, as one might imagine, was overjoyed by the ruling, which leaves open the possibility of further sanctions if EchoStar does not abide by the injunction.

“We are pleased by the Court’s ruling to impose contempt sanctions of approximately $200 million against EchoStar for its continued violation of a Court-ordered permanent injunction, and to award TiVo its attorney fees and costs incurred during the contempt proceedings,” the company said in a statement. “This brings total damages and sanctions in this case to approximately $400 million through July 1, 2009, plus attorney fees, and is exclusive of potential further damages and sanctions. Additionally, we are pleased that the Court ‘will seriously entertain the award of enhanced sanctions’ if ‘EchoStar is unsuccessful on appeal and nevertheless continues to disregard this Court’s orders.’”

Who knows, if DISH keeps it up, TiVo may get that $974.5 million yet.

But in the end, the maker of the BlackBerry line of smart phones ended up licensing them anyway.

This morning, RIM said it will pay Visto $267.5 million to resolve the long-running patent dispute and purchase a license for the intellectual property at issue. The deal, expected to close next week, will end all lawsuits still in court, resolving an issue that, had it turned truly ugly, could have shut down RIM’s BlackBerry email service.

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 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.

We like competition, as long as they don’t rip off our IP, and if they do, we’re going to go after anybody that does….We will not stand for having our IP ripped off and we’ll use whatever weapons we have at our disposal [to make sure that doesn't happen]. I don’t know that I can be more clear than that.”

– Apple COO Tim Cook’s on the company’s iPhone intellectual property

Turns out that when Apple (AAPL) COO Tim Cook said the company would use “whatever weapons we have at our disposal” to pursue anyone who “rips off” Apple’s iPhone intellectual property, he had a very specific weapon in mind: United States Patent #7,479,949. Awarded just days before Cook made that statement, the vast 358-page patent describes the touchscreen, graphical user interface and technologies that define the iPhone user experience, including at least one that may define an element of the Palm (PALM) Pre’s as well. From the patent abstract:

A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

Also described in the patent, a gesture area separate from the iPhone touchscreen UI itself:

In some embodiments, in addition to the touch screen, the device 100 may include a touchpad (not shown) for activating or deactivating particular functions. In some embodiments, the touchpad is a touch-sensitive area of the device that, unlike the touch screen, does not display visual output. The touchpad may be a touch-sensitive surface that is separate from the touch screen 112 or an extension of the touch-sensitive surface formed by the touch screen.

A touch-sensitive area of the device that, unlike the touchscreen, does not display visual output. Hmm. That sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? Where have I heard that before… Oh, I know, in Palm’s announcement of the Pre.

Palm Pre features include the following:

…Gesture area, which enables simple, intuitive gestures for navigation”

Makes you wonder what’s going on in the bowels of Apple legal right now, doesn’t it? Palm legal, too. The company could certainly challenge the validity of the patent if it chose to.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Palm to Apple: Bring It
• Apple COO: “We Will Not Stand for Having Our IP Ripped Off”

The biggest unknown is price, which went unmentioned during the demo. My assumption is that Palm would try to take market share by coming in significantly lower than the $200 or so Apple wants for its iPhone. But when I ran that theory by Palm CEO Ed Colligan, he looked at me liked I’d peed on his rug. ‘Why would we do that when we have a significantly better product,’ he asked, then walked away.”

– Peter Kafka, MediaMemo

CEOs and Palm evangelists convinced that Palm’s new Pre handset is anything more than table stakes at the handset poker game would do well to consider two bits of Apple (AAPL) news and rumor that suggest Cupertino may be hard at work on a next-generation handset capable of mercilessly beating all others into sobbing submission.

The first: A rumor that iPhone 3.0 will support quad-core processors destined for an upcoming iPhone hardware revision. If this proves true and Apple (AAPL) does release a multi-core GPU iPhone–which is not as much of a stretch as you might think–it would likely support features we’re more accustomed to seeing on the PC. And as The Apple Core’s Jason O’Grady notes, “It would slaughter pretty much every portable gaming platform on the market.”

The second: Apple has applied for a patent on a behind-screen camera that could capture images “while the display elements are in an inactive state (in which the display elements are darkened and at least partially transparent).” It doesn’t take much of a leap to see that technology brought to bear on a next-gen iPhone and the long rumored iChat AV Mobile.

Those are two potential killer features for a device that already has three things the Pre does not: a maturing platform, a thriving developer ecosystem and a market leading music player and store. Are they just rumor and speculation? For now, certainly. But given the pace of innovation in the mobile industry, and more specifically, at Apple–where the multi-touch phone that Palm (PALM) is now aping originated two years ago–they’re not beyond the realm of possibility, are they?

Sounds intriguing, yeah? So what it is it?

Chowdhry hasn’t the faintest idea. But he speculates that it will involve chips developed by P.A. Semi, the boutique semiconductor design company Apple acquired last April. A clearer picture of what’s in store for us will emerge in early 2009 with a series of new Apple patent filings says Chowdhry, who contends that a P.A. Semi chip has also been designed into the third-generation iPhone–which will boast vastly improved performance and battery life over its predecessor.