“Microsoft and Yahoo!’s share of online paid search advertising queries in Australia was limited,” the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission said in its notice of approval. “In combining search engine platforms, Microsoft and Yahoo! may have been able to achieve the necessary scale to provide effective and sustainable competition to Google, which had a very large share of online paid search advertising queries.”

Great news for the two companies, whose plan to consolidate two of the search market’s three largest players is currently under review by antitrust regulators at the U.S. Justice Department. Should it be approved, Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) will together control nearly 30 percent of the U.S. search market, giving them a better chance to compete with Google (GOOG), which holds a roughly 65 percent market share.

“We continue to believe that this deal will create a true, competitive alternative in the marketplace that will benefit consumers, advertisers and publishers,” the companies said in a joint statement. “We remain hopeful that the agreement will close in early 2010.”

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.”

On November 9, 2009, the European Commission issued a statement of objections relating to the acquisition of Sun by Oracle Corporation. The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission’s preliminary assessment regarding, and is limited to, the combination of Sun’s open source MySQL database product with Oracle’s enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products. The issuing of a Statement of Objections allows addressees to present arguments in response to the Commission’s preliminary assessment of the competitive effects of a notified transaction. A Statement of Objections is a preparatory document that does not prejudge the European Commission’s final decision. Any final decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal to the European Court of First Instance.

Indignant that the EC would dare to bring the $7 billion deal into question, Oracle vowed to take it to the mat in a harshly worded rebuttal:

Oracle’s acquisition of Sun is essential for competition in the high end server market, for revitalizing Sparc and Solaris and for strengthening the Java development platform. The transaction does not threaten to reduce competition in the slightest, including in the database market. The Commission’s Statement of Objections reveals a profound misunderstanding of both database competition and open source dynamics. It is well understood by those knowledgeable about open source software that because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone. That is the whole point of open source.

The database market is intensely competitive with at least eight strong players, including IBM, Microsoft, Sybase and three distinct open source vendors. Oracle and MySQL are very different database products. There is no basis in European law for objecting to a merger of two among eight firms selling differentiated products. Mergers like this occur regularly and have not been prohibited by United States or European regulators in decades.

The U.S. Department of Justice carefully reviewed the proposed acquisition during the normal Hart-Scott-Rodino review and considered it again when the European Commission initiated a second phase review. On both occasions the Justice Department came to the conclusion that there is nothing anticompetitive about the deal, including specifically Oracle’s acquisition of the MySQL database product. The U.S. Department of Justice approved the acquisition without conditions and terminated the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act on August 20, 2009.

Sun’s customers universally support this merger and do not benefit from the continued uncertainty and delay. Oracle plans to vigorously oppose the Commission’s Statement of Objections as the evidence against the Commission’s position is overwhelming. Given the lack of any credible theory or evidence of competitive harm, we are confident we will ultimately obtain unconditional clearance of the transaction.

And Oracle will evidently pursue its case with help from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, which also issued a statement on the EC’s move today:

After conducting a careful investigation of the proposed transaction between Oracle and Sun, the Department’s Antitrust Division concluded that the merger is unlikely to be anticompetitive. This conclusion was based on the particular facts of the transaction and the Division’s prior investigations in the relevant industries. The investigation included gathering statements from a variety of industry participants and a review of the parties’ internal business documents. At this point in its process, it appears that the EC holds a different view. We remain hopeful that the parties and the EC will reach a speedy resolution that benefits consumers in the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Several factors led the Division to conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to be anticompetitive. There are many open-source and proprietary database competitors. The Division concluded, based on the specific facts at issue in the transaction, that consumer harm is unlikely because customers would continue to have choices from a variety of well established and widely accepted database products. The Department also concluded that there is a large community of developers and users of Sun’s open source database with significant expertise in maintaining and improving the software, and who could support a derivative version of it.

The Department and the European Commission have a strong and positive relationship on competition policy matters. The two competition authorities have enjoyed close and cooperative relations. The Antitrust Division will continue to work constructively with the EC and competition authorities in other jurisdictions to preserve sound antitrust enforcement policies that benefit consumers around the world.

According to a 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Sun (JAVA) lost $120 million, or 16 cents a share, on revenue of $2.24 billion in its first quarter. During the same period a year ago, Sun lost $1.68 billion, or $2.24 a share, on $2.99 billion in sales. Analysts had been expecting earnings of 25 cents a share on revenue of $2.31 billion.

Oracle (ORCL) CEO Larry Ellison recently said that Sun is losing about $100 million a month as it waits for European antitrust regulators to approve its acquisition by Oracle. Looks like he’s about right.

Below, excerpts from the 10-Q:

Server Products Revenue
The decrease in Server Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to the economic downturn and consolidation of our customer base, specifically in the financial services sector, as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with the proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

Storage Products Revenue
The decrease in Storage Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily attributable to the economic downturn as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

North America
The decrease in revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to decreased sales of our enterprise Server Products, storage disk products and Services. We are still seeing the results of IT budget cuts instituted last year by our largest customers due to the economic downturn, especially in the financial services sector, in addition to the consolidation of our customer base. Across all sectors, non-critical projects are on hold. Revenue was also negatively impacted by the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

PREVIOUSLY:

• European Union Mulling Objection to Oracle-Sun Deal
• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Sun to Sack 3,000
• Former MySQL Boss to EC: Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

The Financial Times reports that Oracle’s refusal to offer any concessions to European antitrust regulators may lead them to issue a formal statement of objections to the deal. A complaint could come “within days,” sources tell the FT, though they note that it’s possible that one side or the other will back down before a formal complaint is filed.

If an objection is issued, it will inevitably prolong the entire review process, something Oracle and Sun can ill afford. As Ellison himself recently noted, Sun is losing $100 million a month waiting for approval of the deal.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Sun to Sack 3,000
• Former MySQL Boss to EC: Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

“Every new day of uncertainty is potentially very harmful to the various businesses of Sun, reducing competition in the market,” Mickos wrote. “A delay in the closing of this transaction is therefore only going to work against the respectable goal that you set out to achieve when launching the probe into this acquisition.”

Oracle, says Mickos, has far better reason to ramp-up Sun’s MySQL business than it does to harm it.

“Even if Oracle, for whatever reason, would have malicious or ignorant intent regarding MySQL (not that I think so), the positive and massive influence MySQL has on the DBMS market cannot be controlled by a single entity–not even by the owner of the MySQL assets. The users of MySQL exert a more powerful influence in the market than the owner does,” he continues. “Many expected Oracle to harm MySQL as far back as 2005, when they acquired the InnoDB storage engine that plays a crucial role for many MySQL customers. And yet Oracle increased their investment in InnoDB since that time, making MySQL a stronger player in the market.”

An interesting argument and one that appears to offer Mickos little personal gain. Now an entrepreneur in residence at Benchmark Capital, Mickos says he has no financial interest in the transaction. So why bother making it? “I couldn’t live with the fact that I’m not taking action,” Mickos told News.com.

Mickos’s letter will no doubt be welcomed by Oracle, which has repeatedly said it has only the best intentions for MySQL. “No, we’re not going to spin [MySQL] off,” Oracle CEO Larry Ellison told attendees of a Churchill Club event in Silicon Valley earlier this year. “We are keeping everything. We’re keeping tape. We’re keeping storage. We’re keeping x86 and SPARC. And we’re going to increase investment in all of them.”

“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.

Sun’s (JAVA) shareholders voted to accept Oracle’s (ORCL) offer in mid-July, so all that stands in the way of the deal’s completion is the European Commission. And the EC is set to vote on the merger on Sept. 3.

“Eric is obviously doing a terrific job as CEO of Google, and we look forward to his contributions as a member of Apple’s board of directors. Like Apple, Google is very focused on innovation and we think Eric’s insights and experience will be very valuable in helping to guide Apple in the years ahead.”

–Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 2006

“Apple is one of the companies in the world that I most admire. I’m really looking forward to working with Steve and Apple’s board to help with all of the amazing things Apple is doing.”

–Google CEO Eric Schmidt, August 2006

Asked earlier this year if he would resign from Apple’s board in the face of Federal Trade Commission scrutiny of the close ties between the two companies’ boards of directors, Google CEO Eric Schmidt replied simply, “It hasn’t crossed my mind.”

Well, apparently it has now.

Citing the growing overlap of the two companies’ businesses, Schmidt is giving up his seat on Apple’s board, which he has held since August 2006.

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

“I have very much enjoyed my time on the Apple board,” Schmidt said in a statement of his own. “It’s a fantastic company. But as Apple explained today we’ve agreed it makes sense for me to step down now.”

A wise move. Schmidt’s boardroom role was already reduced because of competitive issues between the iPhone and Android and between Safari and Chrome. Given the obvious competitive issues between the Mac and Google operating systems, it is inevitable that his board involvement would shrink again. Had he retained his seat, Schmidt would have likely spent more time standing outside Apple’s boardroom than in it.

So why bother? Better to step down and avoid the appearance of impropriety, especially when regulators seem to be singling Google (GOOG) out for all manner of scrutiny. Certainly, Apple (AAPL) must be relieved to have the guy with the FTC target on his back out of the boardroom.

And relations between the two companies must have been a bit strained by this Google Voice for iPhone debacle.

It is an extraordinary market play. And an unsettling one. For it seeks to place Google (GOOG), which already collects vast amounts of data about our Internet use, at the very center of our information experience.

The privacy implications are, of course, horrendous. And while Google will inevitably dismiss such concerns as paranoid and argue that any data the company might collect at the OS level will be used only to improve its services and benefit users, it should still give us all pause. Because when it is finally launched, Chrome OS will be yet one more deep well of consumer data to which Google will have access.

There are already quite a few such wells, including Google Search and Chrome, that profile user interests and surfing habits: Gmail, which gives the company access to our email conversations, and Google Voice, which gives the company access to our spoken ones. Add to this Google Street View and Latitude, a service that tracks the physical location of its users, and mobile and desktop operating systems and, well…that kind of consolidation of Internet-based services around a single dominant company should give us all pause.

Lest we forget, Google is in the behavioral targeting business. Why would people ever use an OS developed by a company whose business is based on meticulously recording and analyzing their online behavior? Because they enjoy using its other services, I suppose. But there is a privacy-vs-ease-of-use tradeoff here. And with Chrome OS, it is unprecedented. Further, while Google might tout its “don’t be evil” motto as reason enough to trust the company with our data, there are other entities that don’t always share that sensibility. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that the federal government tried to force Google to turn over user search data to the Justice Department…

“Competition in the OS market should always be welcome, but Google is the special case,” Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Digital Daily. “It has become dominant across many essential Internet services–search, mail, video, online apps, and advertising. Coupled with Google’s growing profiles of American consumers and reluctance to adopt meaningful privacy safeguards, we expect that antitrust authorities in the US and Europe will view Google’s entry into the OS market with enormous skepticism.”

Jeff Chester, executive director of The Center for Digital Democracy, echoed Rotenberg’s concerns. “Google’s new OS has to be placed under the data collection X-Ray by US and EU privacy regulators and advocates,” he said. “Any expansion into the marketplace by either Google or Microsoft should generate intense scrutiny, especially for the privacy implications. These two are engaged in a global data collections digital arms race, which has far-reaching implications for consumers and their information.”

Microsoft and the European Commission have canceled a face-to-face hearing in an antitrust case pending against the company over a scheduling dispute, of all things. Seems Microsoft is unhappy with the date of the hearing, which it says falls during a time when key senior regulators will be unable to attend. “The dates the Commission selected for our hearing, June 3-5, coincide with the most important worldwide intergovernmental competition law meeting, the International Competition Network meeting,” Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft, wrote in a blog post. “As a result, it appears that many of the most influential Commission and national competition officials with the greatest interest in our case will be in Zurich and so unable to attend our hearing in Brussels.”

Microsoft (MSFT) asked the EC to reschedule. It refused, claiming June 3-5 are the only dates that a suitable room is available in Brussels for a hearing. Which is, of course, ridiculous. But no more so than Microsoft’s argument that the hearing will suffer from the absence of European decision-makers, says Thomas Vinje, counsel for Opera, a complainant in the case. Because, in all likelihood, those folks wouldn’t have attended anyway. “Such people simply don’t attend such hearings, and Microsoft knows it,” Vinje told the Financial Times. “The undoubted truth must simply be that Microsoft is afraid of facing the questions and evidence it would face from the Commission and from those aligned against it.”

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.”