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.”

Which is saying something. Because as you might recall, in 1999, Nasdaq was soaring on the back of the dot-com bubble to levels never before seen.

And here we are amid the worst recession since the 1930s. Haven’t even entered that “all important holiday shopping season” yet, either.

Things are looking pretty good for Amazon (AMZN) right now. Sure, there’s renewed competition from retailers like Wal-Mart (WMT). There are potential sales tax issues and income tax liabilities and a raft of Kindle-killers headed to market. But Amazon’s stock is up 131 percent this year, brokerage firms are upgrading their ratings on the company, and analysts are saying it’s only going to go higher.

Said Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney: “Near-term outlook very positive as AMZN heads into holiday season fully armed against shrinking/de-stocking offline retailers, with one of the must-have gadgets of the season (Kindle), a significantly strengthening International presence, and soon-to-be closed Zappos acquisition.”

Yeah. Things are looking pretty good right now. But we said that back in ‘99 too–when Amazon had a similar P/E.

It would seem then that the so-called “fastest-growing segment of the PC market” is also the most misunderstood. For what is a netbook but an underpowered laptop or a giant Gallagher-sized smartphone? Consumers are intrigued by the netbook’s low prices, but they don’t understand its value proposition.

“We need to make sure consumers are buying a PC intended for what they plan to do with it,” said NPD’s Stephen Baker. “There is a serious risk of cannibalization in the notebook market that could cause a real threat to netbooks’ success. Retailers and manufacturers can’t put too much emphasis on PC-like capabilities and general features that could convince consumers that a netbook is a replacement for a notebook. Instead, they should be marketing mobility, portability, and the need for a companion PC to ensure consumers know what they are buying and are more satisfied with their purchases.”

“That the worldwide mobile phone market started off 2009 with a year-over-year decline highlights just how much the economic recession has affected all industries, including the wireless market,” Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, said in a statement. “The market continues to adapt to the new economic reality with both vendors and retailers exercising caution to remain profitable. In some cases, this has meant holding less inventory, or even reducing headcount. Fortunately, new features and demand for phones will help the market resist the financial pressure. We expect to see further year-over-year declines worldwide, even as some regions show signs of improvement.”

The deal is an interesting one, and for a number of reasons. Unlike Brooks–or The Eagles or Journey, who have similar pacts with Wal-mart–AC/DC is still under contract to Sony (SNE) BMG’s Columbia Records. By inking such a deal, Columbia almost certainly risks alienating other retailers, who can’t be happy to see AC/DC’s first album of all-new material in eight years become a Wal-Mart exclusive. Among those retailers: Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes Music Store, where AC/DC has so far refused to distribute its music.

The deal also comes at a time when Wal-Mart and other big retailers are reducing their CD shelf space. It’s been estimated that Wal-Mart, Circuit City (CC) and Target (TGT) have cut between 5 percent and 23 percent of their CD inventory in the last two years. Which means that retail exposure, which was once a given for many bands, is becoming increasingly dear. So much so that it’s a negotiating point, and–in Wal-Mart’s case–enough of one for big-name acts to justify allowing the retailer to sell their new releases on an exclusive basis.

“Shelf space has shrunk so much over the last five years that for anyone to give you shelf space and exposure is a big deal,” Terry McBride, chief executive of Nettwerk Music Group, recently told the New York Times. “Should the labels be worried? There’s been a move away from the labels for a number of years now. And it’s not necessarily their fault. The shelf space to have those records sell just isn’t there. That’s the market reality.”

The state recently passed a so-called Amazon Tax, a new law compelling out-of-state online retailers to start collecting New York sales tax. The law, designed to recover sales taxes potentially lost to Internet purchases, requires any e-tailer with even a single affiliate site with a New York State address–say, a blog that earns a referral fee for sending customers to Amazon (AMZN)–to collect sales tax on all goods sold in the state, even those not sold through the affiliate.

Its authors say it will contribute about $50 million to the state’s budget, and it might, if Amazon doesn’t get it declared unconstitutional first. Earlier this week, the company filed a suit challenging the law because it imposes tax-collection obligations on retailers, online and off, with no physical presence in the state. Worse, it does so based on nothing more than advertising in New York, a definition that includes retailers with even the slightest connection to the state.

Said Amazon: “This statute was intended to impose tax-collection obligations on out-of-state Internet retailers such as Amazon. Nonetheless, the statute, as drafted, on its face would also impose tax-collection obligations on non-Internet out-of-state retailers who pay New York print media, television or radio outlets to advertise their products and thereby refer New York customers to buy them.”