The largest and widest ranging PC technology dispute, perhaps in the industry's history, came to an abrupt end this morning with Intel and AMD agreeing to set aside most of their differences, and all of their legal disputes. Is this a signal to the various litigators in the information technology industry that litigation is no longer the way to go, that it's too expensive a way for a company to continue protecting its market position? Betanews caught up with our contributing analyst Carmi Levy, by way of his trusty BlackBerry, on a train headed to Toronto this morning.

Carmi Levy: If litigation isn't too expensive from a fiscal perspective, then it certainly is onerous from a corporate attention perspective. Specifically, getting involved in years-long, tit-for-tat pitched legal battles that spill across global borders can often be the catalyst for losing focus on core competencies. While lawsuit-laden companies inevitably claim their legal processes do not impede strategic planning or day-to-day operations, it's clear that they're being overly optimistic. Litigation is a distraction. Never-ending litigation can split a company's focus for just long enough that it can easily lose touch with the needs of its market.

In a post-recessionary world, organizations are more vulnerable than ever to the consequences of this form of split focus.

Scott Fulton: Under the terms of this morning's agreement, Intel didn't have to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and it can continue offering volume rebates so long as they're not exclusionary...Doesn't that mean the cases of the New York Attorney General and the EC go flying out the window?

Carmi Levy: We may yet see pending cases in New York and Europe get tossed in the wake of this deal, but we'll have to wait and see how each jurisdiction weighs in. It's still early in that process, and it could take weeks or months before Intel gets the all clear in every venue where these is either current or pending litigation. Still, on the surface, it looks likely that Intel's ability to offer non-exclusionary rebates cuts the legs out from virtually all cases against it.

Scott Fulton: Is the business world ready for the dull, boring reality of competition between equal innovators everywhere in the spirit of openness and (yawn!) friendship? (Or put more directly, won't the rest of us in the media need to wake up to the new reality of business?)

Carmi Levy: I think it's time we -- both consumers as well as media, and while we're at it, the litigants and vendors, too -- moved on and paid more attention to what vendors do in the market with their products and services and less on what they're up to in front of a judge. In Intel's and AMD's case, they bring us technology that powers the information economy. They both have finally woken up to the fallacy of devoting endless resources to legal action that doesn't enhance their ability to design and market better products. Hopefully now they'll both be able to get back to business -- albeit an admittedly changed one.

And when they do, I think there's still ample opportunity for these two companies to slug it out where it matters most: in the market at large. Without the weight of seemingly never-ending litigation dragging them both down, we can look forward to more innovation and fewer antagonistic press releases and court filings.

Which means journos like us may have to change our approach to coverage as well!