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

“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.”

The new iMacs boast LED-backlit 21.5- and 27-inch widescreen displays in an edge-to-edge glass design and all aluminum enclosure. They’re available with Intel (INTC) Core 2 Duo processors starting at 3.06 GHz, and Core i5 and i7 quad-core processors for even better performance. The low-end model is priced at $1,199, the same as the past generation, but its high-end sibling is now $200 cheaper, at $1,999.

The new MacBook features an 13.3-inch LED backlit display, a multitouch trackpad, and a $999 price tag. Though still housed in white polycarbonate plastic, it features an updated unibody design borrowed from the MacBook Pro.

The successor to the Mighty Mouse, Magic Mouse, eliminates mechanical buttons, instead, employing the same multitouch surface found on the iPhone, iPod touch, and Mac notebook trackpads, allowing users to navigate their desktops with simple gesture commands.

Accompanying the Magic Mouse is a a new Apple Remote. It’s got a new design and is, predictably, housed in aluminum.

Finally, Apple (AAPL) also updated the Mac mini. While its design is largely identical to that of its predecessor, it offers far more storage. Starting at $599, the entry-level Mac mini features a faster 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory, a 160GB hard drive, five USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 800, Nvidia GeForce 9400M integrated graphics and a SuperDrive.

There’s also a new $999 Mac mini that’s specially configured with a Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server. It’s outfitted with two 500GB hard drives for a total of 1TB of server storage.

Quite a refresh and one analysts are already crowing about. In a bulletin released after the announcement, Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster said Apple’s new machines will undoubtedly improve the company’s prospects for the December quarter.

“We expect the new iMacs, and to a lesser degree the new Mac minis, to help the desktop category rebound in the Dec. quarter,” Munster wrote. “In other words, the headwind that existed in the Sept. quarter due to aging Mac desktops has now turned into a tailwind for Mac units in the Dec. quarter….Bottom Line: Street Mac numbers may also be conservative if positive trends continue coupled with new Macs in the quarter.”

“Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger’s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device–such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos–that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low.”

Microsoft (MSFT) hasn’t yet said what caused the failure, though some speculate it was a bungled storage area network upgrade performed without backup. Nor has the company said why it doesn’t have a copy of Sidekick user data (I’ve asked Microsoft for comment and will update here if and when one is offered).

There’s likely a reasonable explanation for the service disruption and server failure, but it’s hard to imagine one for unrecoverable data loss. Danger should have had a redundant backups of user data. Clearly, it didn’t, or if it did, they were abysmally unreliable. Either way, this is an ugly embarrassment for Danger and Microsoft and one that will probably cost them the trust of Sidekick users.

Sadly, Danger seems to have lived up to its name.

Good thing Wall Street wasn’t expecting much from Microsoft. Because it didn’t get it.

After market close Thursday, the Redmond, Wash.-based tech giant reported that fiscal fourth-quarter net income fell to $3.05 billion, or 34 cents a share, from $4.3 billion, or 46 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier.

Revenue for the period ended in June fell 17 percent to $13.1 billion. Wall Street had been looking for earnings of 36 cents a share on $14.37 billion in revenue, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.

Online advertising revenue decreased $86 million, or 14 percent, to $529 million, primarily reflecting a decline in display advertising.

The company missed estimates by $1 billion. Gruesome.

“Our business continued to be negatively impacted by weakness in the global PC and server markets,” CFO Chris Liddell said in a statement. “In light of that environment, it was an excellent achievement to deliver over $750 million of operational savings compared to the prior year quarter.”

Microsoft shares are trading down more than eight percent at $23.50, as I write this.

Below is the full earnings release. BoomTown’s Kara Swisher will be liveblogging the earnings call later this afternoon.

Microsoft Reports Fourth-Quarter Results

The company delivered operational efficiency and innovation in a difficult environment

REDMOND, Wash., July 23, 2009–Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $13.10 billion for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2009, a 17% decline from the same period of the prior year. Operating income, net income and diluted earnings per share for the quarter were $3.99 billion, $3.05 billion and $0.34 per share, which represented declines of 30%, 29% and 26%, respectively, when compared with the prior year period.

“Our business continued to be negatively impacted by weakness in the global PC and server markets,” said Chris Liddell, chief financial officer at Microsoft. “In light of that environment, it was an excellent achievement to deliver over $750 million of operational savings compared to the prior year quarter.”

The financial results for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2009, included the deferral of $276 million of revenue related to the Windows 7 Upgrade Option program that was announced on June 25, 2009. This revenue deferral reduced earnings per share by $0.02.

The fourth-quarter financial results also included $193 million of legal charges, $108 million of impairments to investments and $40 million of additional severance charges related to the previously announced plan. Operating expenses were reduced by $105 million of capitalized research and development expenses due to the technical milestones reached for Windows 7. Combined, these items also reduced earnings per share by $0.02.

Significant product milestones were achieved in the quarter including the releases of Windows 7 release candidate, Windows Server 2008 R2 release candidate, as well as Bing, Microsoft’s search engine designed to help people make faster, more informed decisions.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, Microsoft reported revenue of $58.44 billion, a 3% decline from the prior year. Operating income, net income and diluted earnings per share for the year were $20.36 billion, $14.57 billion and $1.62, which represented declines of 9%, 18% and 13% respectively.

“While economic conditions presented challenges this year, we maintained our focus on delivering customer satisfaction and providing solutions to our customers to save money,” said Kevin Turner, chief operating officer at Microsoft. “I am very excited by the wave of product and services innovations being delivered in this next fiscal year.”

Business Outlook

Microsoft is providing operating expense guidance of $26.6 billion to $26.9 billion, for the full year ending June 30, 2010.

Management will discuss fourth-quarter results and the company’s business outlook on a conference call and webcast at 2:30 p.m. PDT (5:30 p.m. EDT) today.

In April, when the company reported its first-ever year-over-year decline in quarterly revenue, CFO Chris Liddell said the weakness would persist through the next quarter. This is “the most difficult economic environment the company has faced in our history,” he said. So when the company reports subpar financials later this week, it should come as no surprise.

Certainly, analysts are already steeling themselves for a poor showing. Consensus estimates from Thomson Reuters have Microsoft (MSFT) posting earnings of 36 cents per share on revenue of $14.38 billion. That’s down quite a bit from the 46 cents a share and $15.84 billion Microsoft reported during the same period last year and demonstrates just how heavily the ongoing weakness in the PC and server markets is weighing on the company.

With global PC shipments at their worst since the great dark times of 2001, there’s little reason to expect things to improve for Microsoft anytime soon.

“The installation of the Google Apps Sync plugin disables Outlook’s ability to search any and all of your Outlook data,” Microsoft explained in a post to the Outlook Team blog. “When a Google Apps user installs the sync plugin for Outlook, the plugin modifies a registry key which disables Windows Desktop Search from indexing and providing search functionality for all Outlook data, not just the Outlook data being synchronized from GMail. Because Outlook search relies upon the indexing performed by Windows Desktop Search, Outlook search functions are broken as a result. It is also important to note that uninstalling the plugin may not fix the issue.”

Uh-oh. Good luck finding that budget-request email you sent to your CFO a few months ago….

Google (GOOG) is working with Microsoft (MSFT) to resolve the issue, but the damage may have already been done. Enterprise is notoriously reluctant to embrace change specifically because of cock-ups like this. Enterprise likes familiarity. It likes seamless change. With Apps Sync for Outlook, Google provided the former, but it fell short on the latter. And that may inspire some companies that had been considering Apps Sync for Outlook to stick with Exchange for a while longer.

“After losing share to Intel on a sequential basis during three out of four quarters in 2008, AMD managed to reverse the trend in the first quarter of 2009,” iSuppli analyst Matthew Wilkins said in a statement. “AMD increased its allocation of global microprocessor revenue due to strong performances in each area of its microprocessor portfolio, particularly in its notebook products. This was an impressive feat given the economic downturn and the weakness in the PC and server markets.”

Of course, AMD (AMD) did suffer an econalypse-inspired revenue decline in Q1, as did Intel (INTC). And the factors that caused it are expected to persist. iSuppli figures the 2009 microprocessor market will top out at $28.6 billion, down 15.8 percent from $34 billion in 2008.

“Lately Silicon Graphics Inc. has had the kind of upward momentum associated with the hit movies produced with its whizzy high-powered work stations, like ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day’ and ‘Jurassic Park.’ After the company outperformed Wall Street’s earnings estimates last week and the stock jumped 15 percent, analysts scrambled to upgrade ratings and future earnings forecasts.”

– Silicon Graphics’ Hot Run Goes On, New York Times, 1994

Time was, there was a Silicon Graphics (SGIC) workstation on every desk in computationally-intense industries like chemistry and film production. No longer. Cheap Linux boxes have rendered them obsolete and SGI, the company, along with them. This morning, SGI, which recently endured a brace of layoffs, filed for bankruptcy protection for a second time and sold itself to Rackable Systems, which makes server and storage products for midsize and large data centers, for $25 million in cash.

“We have been working very hard to strengthen our company, and today, we’ve taken another big step in that direction,” SGI CEO Robert Ewald said in a statement that would make even the most exuberant of SGI-optimists wince. “This transaction represents a compelling opportunity for Silicon Graphics’ customers, partners and employees, who can all benefit from the emerging stronger company with better technologies, products and markets [sic] reach.”

A sad ending for SGI, which really reinvented computer graphics and made quite a name for itself in the high-performance computing space back in the day.

Long a partner to the big server makers, the networking equipment giant today became a competitor, announcing an aggressive push into the server market. No longer content to peddle switches and routers alone, Cisco (CSCO) is now selling what it calls a unified computing system–a full-blown data center solution that encompasses everything from servers and storage to connectivity and virtualization services. The move is a brazen challenge to IBM (IBM), HP (HPQ) and other vendor partners with whom Cisco had once cooperated. “We’re going to compete with HP,” Cisco CTO Padmasree Warrior told The Wall Street Journal. “I don’t want to sugarcoat that. There is bound to be change in the landscape of who you compete with and who you partner with.”

Of course, but “change” is rather a tame word for a potentially market-disrupting expansion of Cisco’s business. This is a power grab, plain and simple. A game-changer. Cisco is offering an integrated approach to what’s long been a multivendor arrangement. Whereas before, CIOs would purchase servers from one company, virtualization software from another and networking from yet another, the networking giant is proposing they now purchase them together from a single vendor: Cisco. And that puts it on a collision course with IBM and HP.

“H-P, IBM and Cisco are the new four horsemen of IT infrastructure and they are all fighting to increase their share of the enterprise IT wallet,” Forrester Research analyst James Staten told Marketwatch. “They have all benefited from growth of the market and by taking share from weaker players, but are now needing to go after each other’s strongholds to keep growing. They are definitely leveraging technology evolutions that drive unification, so customers win through this competition, but it’s going to be a bloody fight.”

How could a company whose Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, once told the Senate Commerce Committee that allowing “broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success,” approach those carriers with a proposal that would seemingly do just that?

There’s a very simple answer to that question: Google is not doing that, and reports suggesting that is are misguided. Yes, Google (GOOG) “has approached major cable and phone companies” with a plan to “place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers.” Yes, this plan would improve content delivery speeds.

And, no, doing so does not violate the concept of network neutrality. If it did, companies like Akamai and Limelight, which also have servers hosted at broadband provider facilities, would long ago have been tarred as anti-Net neutrality villains. Colocating caching servers is a common practice that improves bandwidth usage by bringing data closer to the end user. And while it will certainly make Google’s services faster and more responsive, it won’t do so at the expense of non-Google services. That would be a violation of Net neutrality.

“Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching–temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users–violates the concept of network neutrality,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel explains. “As I said last summer, this myth–which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal–is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works…. All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs–which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache–are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic.”

So Google is not negotiating exclusive deals for privileged access. It is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.” It is not seeking to prioritize its traffic in violation of the Net neutrality principles it espouses. Frankly, this story has little to do with Net neutrality at all. “Network neutrality is about the routing of packets,” Tech Liberation Front’s Tim Lee explained earlier this year when Akamai was accused of violating Net neutrality. “A network is neutral if it faithfully transmits information from one end of the network to the other and doesn’t discriminate among packets based on their contents. Neutrality is, in other words, about the behavior of the routers that move packets around the network. It has nothing to do with the behavior of servers at the edges of the network because they don’t route anyone’s packets.”