Look, I like Luke Wilson. He's a funny guy. I've been a fan ever since he and his brother Owen showed up in Wes Anderson's indie comedy "Bottle Rocket" in 1996. But he's not exactly a commanding pitch man. And that's just one of the problems with AT&T Wireless' new TV spot, which is a rebuttal to Verizon's catchy, compelling and extremely effective "There's a Map For That" advertising campaign.

AT&T suffered a major setback Wednesday in war with Verizon. AT&T sued its rival earlier this month and sought a restraining order against Verizon to force the company to stop running its 3G map ads. But a judge denied AT&T's request and stated that while Verizon's ad camapign might be a clever and a little tricky, the overall claims were true.

That's what Verizon has been saying all along, too. The company filed a legal brief with the court arguing that AT&T wasn't contesting the facts of the ad -- just the presentation -- and the only reason it was suing Verizon was because "the truth hurts."

Ouch. Well, the judge apparently agreed. So AT&T decided to rebound from that major setback by running new prime time TV spots featuring their own side-by-side comparison with Verizon. The ad, featuring Wilson in what looks like a deserted office building, claims that AT&T has the fastest 3G network. The ad also points out that AT&T's service allows you to surf the Web and talk on the phone at the same time (which I've never done, but hey, I might some day). But then the ad begins to reach a little. The next item on the board is most popular smartphones, which goes to AT&T -- come on, that has little to do with the wireless service carrier. Then the next item touts "access to over a 100,000 apps," which again goes in AT&T's favor.

And the last item? Well, that is a name that starts with the letter "V," which of course he awards to Verizon. It's even less funny when you watch it. And that's the problem here. Verizon's ads work because they riff on Apple's familiar and somewhat annoying "There's An App For That" campaign, which promotes the thousands upon thousands of popular yet nich-focused and even frivolous applications for the iPhone. And better yet, Verizon's ads have clearly struck a nerve with AT&T -- and perhaps consumers as well. AT&T's lawsuit and Verizon's subsequent Round 1 victory have only given more weight and publicity to the ads.

And if this is the best response AT&T can muster, then it's in trouble.

Nvidia has posted another cartoon on its Web site "Intel's Insides," poking more fun at Intel. And unlike some of the pevious six cartoons on Nvidia's smarmy site, this one is actually somewhat humorous.

But again, it begs the question: should Nvidia be messing around with cartoons when it should be focused on shipping its next-generation DirectX 10 graphics card? Wouldn't Nvidia be better off solving the its own issues?

I get what Nvidia is attempting here. I do. It's trying to show up Big Bad Intel. But it's trying to wage two wars right now: one with Intel, and one with the smaller but still formidable AMD. Sure, Nvidia posted strong third quarter earnings and raised its forecast for Q4. And yes, the add-on graphics market is rebounding. However, Jon Peddie Research reports that the fourth quarter/holiday season could be an extremely competitive period for Nvidia, now that AMD has released its next-gen cards while Nvidia's offering languishes in delays.

Peddie states: "AMD’s got a brand new set of graphics cards ready for the holiday (and Windows 7) season. Its launch of the Evergreen (Radeon HD 5000 series) generation has equipped the company with strong offerings for the Enthusiast and Performance segments, ready to entice somewhat-more-optimistic consumers. Nvidia, however, will have to get by this holiday season with previous-generation products, as it hustles to get products based on its ambitious Fermi generation ready for (what appears to be) the first quarter of 2010."

Hear that, Nvidia? It's time to hustle. Put down the pen and pick up the sword because AMD is waiting for you on the battlefield.

The legal battle between Apple and Mac clone creator Psystar isn't over yet, but Psystar may have indeed been dealt a fatal blow with the recent court decision that favored Apple. The judge ruled that Psystar's primary defense -- that Apple was misused its copyright of its own software -- didn't hold water. The case will resume in court next month, when Apple can seek an injunction against Psystar and its Mac clone products and shut them down, possibly for good.

But while the Psystar saga may be coming to an end, the battle will continue to rage on as "Hackintosh" efforts continue. So what does the court ruling mean for the debate about copyright protection, EULA restrictions, DMCA law and digital property rights?

Personally, I'd love to be able to replace the copy of Windows Vista on my PC with OS X (but only if I could still play PC games on the system). I've long favored Mac's operating system over Windows. And I think it's a mistake for Apple to not at least explore licensing OS X to run on PCs. But if they want to be stubborn and restrictive, well, it's their software and its their right to be proprietary. Case closed.

But the demand for OS X on PCs is apparently growing, and if folks can buy PCs with preloaded versions of OS X on them, then they'll just find software tools to circumvent the install restrictions (Psystar and others have already released tools that do just that, although tinkering with OS X can ruin your PC hardware). I've read and heard a lot of negative reactions toward Apple in this case. They sympathize with Psystar and wonder why, if I've legally purchased a software product, can't I install that product on the machine of my choice? What about my rights as a software owner?

I certainly understand these feelings, but I suppose the bottom line is that you are not actually buying software -- you are licensing it. And you are agreeing to the terms of the end user license agreement. Cumbersome? Without a doubt. Annoyingly restrictive? For sure. But is it illegal? Is Apple really misusing its copyright power by determining where OS X can run and where it can't, as Psystar claimed?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. But judging by the scores of computer enthusiasts raging about the court's decision in this case, it seems like a lot of folks -- both PC and Mac fans -- are befuddled by the law and enraging that their power is so severely limited by Big Bad Apple.

But doesn't Apple have the right to make its own decisions regarding its products? In the same way Google can give its products away for free and let anyone download or use them, Apple is taking a more restrictive route. And it makes sense when you think about the dangers of producing and distributing software in today's world. Software piracy is prevalent, and so is hacking and modding. Apple wants to retain control of what kind of machines its software runs on, and to that I can sympathize. I'd be terrified to create any kind of software development business, whether its an OS or a PC game, for fear that my products would be looted and my revenues cut in half -- or more.

And that's the catch: I suppose in this day and age, a company would be crazy to NOT have cumbersome and annoyingly restrictive software licenses. In any event Apple should be allowed to do what it wants with its products, and consumers should have the right to either agree to its terms or walk away. And at the end of the day, Apple should win its case against Psystar, lock, stock and barrel. If you created a software product and another company copied it, violated the EULA and began reselling it, you'd argue the same thing.

Director-writer Kevin Smith of "Clerks" and "Dogma" fame is returning to MacWorld next year. And apparently, he wants everyone to know how absurdly in love he is with Apple's computers. In an official press release from MacWorld 2010 organizer IDG, Smith declared that he was "gay for Mac."

"Can't wait to talk to this crowd again, as we share a common passion,” said Kevin Smith in the press release. “I identify straight, but I'm gay for Mac. However, let's be honest: I'm coming back to Macworld for all that free stuff."

Smith is well-known Mac aficionado and apparently uses Apple products to create much of his work (which is mostly writing, but still). He appeared at MacWorld in 2007, where he had to contend with Steve Jobs' keynote and the long-awaited unveiling of the iPhone. But by all accounts, Smith held his own and delivered a session to remember (he suggested that Apple create an, um, iPod model that you could...ah, interact with a very, VERY personal way. You get the point).

In any event, Macworld's organizers are thrilled tp have Smith back. “We are pleased to welcome Kevin Smith, one of the greatest and most entertaining storytellers we have, and an avid user of the Apple products platform, to Macworld,” said Paul Kent, Macworld general manager and vice president at IDG World Expo. “Kevin’s dynamic and informative style, commitment to his community of fans and creative use of Mac technology exemplify what Macworld is all about. With the addition of Kevin to our already extraordinary line up of speakers and a host of conference programming dedicated to those interested in film and movies, Macworld 2010 will once again be the best place on earth for the creative community to gather, learn, see and try all things Mac.”

On a personal note, I love Kevin Smith. I loved his movies ever since "Clerks" (well, except "Jersey Girl"). He's a great writer with a keen ear for comedic dialogue. And having seen him live before, I can attest that he is -- vulgarity aside -- a very gifted speaker.

But...I'm not sure having Smith makes MacWorld a better event. Sure, it may make Apple seem hipper and cooler. But Smith seems better suited to appear at Comic-Con or on his own tours (which are great, by the way). MacWorld should stick to technology and cater the the folks who want to learn more about the latest developments within the company.

Now that Intel and AMD have closed the book on ALL of their legal disputes with a historic $1.25 billion settlement, the question is: who got the better end of the deal?

I get the feeling that had Intel not been hit with a new antitrust lawsuit from New York State and not received a whopping $1.45 billion fine by the European Union, then we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of a settlement between these two rivals. Intel would probably continue to brush off AMD and Intel CEO Paul Otellini would continue to profess his company's innocence and puritywhile proclaiming victory every step of the way. But that didn't happen, and as one colleague of mine stated, AMD should give a cut of the settlement to the government regulators.

Without mounting pressure from governments around the world, Intel wouldn't have settled. And if that's the case, then it looks like the edge goes AMD. Intel is forced to pay out more than a billion dollars to AMD, which needs the cash. So AMD gets to pay down some of its debt and inch closer to profitability while doing away with a major distraction for investors. No more legal bills, and a big check. Not bad for a day's work.

Plus, let's face it: AMD was looking at a long, expensive uphill battle. Sure, the government cases against Intel helped. But it's highly unlikely that AMD would have ever seen a multi-billion dollar award. And if it did, the case would have lingered on as Intel appealed the judgment. That's just the way our legal system works.

So AMD gets the cash. In addition, the agreement also put limits on Intel's business practices, though the settlement terms for this part have yet to be specified. I'm guessing that Intel has already curbed some of these practices in light of the fines and lawsuits from various governments, including Korea, Europe, and the U.S. But still, AMD gets Intel to put it in writing, and that's a big plus.

And lastly and perhaps most importantly, AMD wins the perception war. Its claims against Intel have been at least partially, if not mostly, validated. AMD was enjoying a major resurgence five years ago, thanks to its foray into 64-bit computing, and was putting pressure on Intel. But when AMD filed its antitrust suit in 2005, many felt the chip maker was simply whining about Intel's power and was attempting to get a leg up on its rival in the courtroom rather than competing fairly in the market.

But as it turned out, AMD was competing fairly in the market, and Intel was not. While Intel has not admitted to any specific wrongdoing against AMD in the settlement, let's use some common sense because the implication is clear: Intel crossed the line somewhere. Maybe it was unintentional. Maybe it was just a few isolated incident rather than a systemic, widespread culture of anti-competitive practices. We probably won't ever really know. But at least this AMD-Intel business is behind us.

For now, at least.

Cisco is rolling out new certifications for partners looking to capitalize on video teleconferencing.

The deployment has apparently been in the development stages for a while, but Cisco has finally decided to open up the program past its test bed of partners. That means a new certification from the networking giant that could result in more money for your business.

The program will include two certifications for solution providers: Cisco TelePresence Solutions Specialist and Cisco TelePresence Installations Specialist. The latter is for technicians certified for installation and construction of the systems and the former is for solution providers who want to design, implement and maintain the video conference.

Sounds like there’s an opportunity for both a hardware and services play. That’s not such a bad thing.

Please, sir, I’d like some more.

I guess the question is really: how much demand will there be for these TelePresence systems? I doubt they are cheap; does that equate into an enterprise-only business or can mid-sized companies play with the hardware too?

I’m assuming one of the sales tactics that will be taken in pushing these devices on customers will be that TelePresence will cut down on travel expenses. Over time that’s probably true, but Cisco is counting on each branch office or business partner having one of these systems installed. If they don’t, it is still time to hit the road.

Google is getting into the holiday spirit. Starting now the search engine giant will be providing free Wi-Fi in 47 airports, probably to remove some of the holiday travel sting.

First, I can’t believe Google is unveiling a present just a week and a half after Halloween -- Sergey, Larry, it’s a nice thought, but it’s not even Thanksgiving. I mean, come on.

Second, I find it strange that of the 47 airports included in the Wi-Fi stocking stuffer, some of the major airports that a whole lot of people will be flying through are being neglected. Notably, airports in Chicago, LA, San Francisco, New York City and Dallas are left of the list.

I’m from Chicago and consider O’Hare to be my home airport, so maybe this gripe is a little bit personal. But I live in Boston now and I’m heading to St. Louis for the holidays this year – both of which scored free Wi-Fi! -- so maybe not.

Either way, can’t Google keep its finger out of anything? The company already controls my search, email, calendar and, if you believe Rupert Murdoch, all of the news too.

I’m half expecting to see targeted ads on my mantel next. “This roaring fire brought to you by the good folks at Google; Prometheus who?”

I may be speaking to a minority of readers in this crowd, but part of the holiday season for me involves leaving the iPhone turned off and making the laptop an afterthought. It’ll still be there when I get back to work.

So while the Wi-Fi is a nice treat for easing the holiday travel blues, it’d also be nice to not have to realize that Google is always there, looking over my shoulder, collecting my data and trying to cheer me up while I’m content to be miserable in an airport waiting to catch a flight that is invariably delayed by snow and ground traffic.

Humbug.