The 13-page CID includes 39 different requests for documents ranging from those setting forth Google’s policies and procedures for calculating AdWords prices and minimum bids to minutes and agendas from search quality team meetings and records of the “black listing” or “white listing” of specific Web sites. Also requested: Documents that “describe, analyze, or discuss competition for advertisers from Bing and Yahoo” and others concerning the strategy for e-commerce services like Froogle and Google Shopping.

It’s an extraordinarily thorough set of demands and shows the Texas AG to be reviewing not just Google’s ranking of search results and setting of advertising prices, but questioning whether the company favors its own businesses and advertisers in results. Has Google complied with them? That’s not yet clear, though company spokesman Adam Kovacevich says discussions with Abbott’s office continue.

“Since we started Google we have worked hard to do the right thing by our users and our industry, and while there’s always going to be room for improvement, we’re committed to competing fair and square,” he said. “We’re continuing to work with the Texas attorney general’s office to answer their questions and understand any concerns.”

Texas_GOOG_CID –

Apple is likely to introduce its mobile ad platform Thursday at its iPhone developer event, say sources familiar with the company’s plans. Expect to hear a loud cheer from Google, Apple’s former ally and current competitor.

Why would Google applaud the entrance of a new advertising rival? Because Google is trying to convince federal regulators that it has advertising rivals so that it can proceed with its $750 million purchase of AdMob. That deal is being held up for review by the Federal Trade Commission, and there have been consistent murmurs from Washington that the purchase could be in jeopardy.

Apple’s plan to get into mobile advertising has been apparent since early January when the company purchased Quattro Wireless for $275 million. Like AdMob, Quattro specializes in ads that run within apps. That’s a tiny market now, but it’s expected to grow along with the booming app economy, pushed by the mobile platforms Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) are promoting.

Sources say Apple will discuss its plans to create an ad network for its developers at its Thursday event. I assume, but don’t know, that the company also plans to make its network available to developers on rival platforms, like Google’s Android. I also assume that if Google gets its AdMob deal approved, it will open that network to Apple’s developers–even if either side wanted to make its ad play an exclusive one, shutting out rivals would be a red flag for regulators.

In the meantime, Google has been going out of its way to highlight Apple’s mobile ad moves. Two days after the Quattro news broke, Google wrote a blog post applauding the move.

Last month, when MediaPost wrote a story speculating about Apple’s mobile ad plans–the publication dubbed the platform “iAd,” but I’m not sure that Apple intends to go with that name–Google sent reporters an email link to the story. “If true, it would be more evidence of how competitive and quickly-evolving the mobile ad space is,” wrote Adam Kovacevich, a manager at the company’s public affairs group.

One problem for Google is that you can argue that the company already has a dominant position in the existing mobile ads business–the one that isn’t dependent on smartphone apps. That’s largely because mobile is now a default option when advertisers buy keywords on the search giant’s AdWords system. One industry observer I talked to guesstimates that those ads alone will generate $300 million for Google this year.

I followed up with Kovacevich today and asked him how Apple’s move would affect the chances of the AdMob deal. Give him credit for consistency–here’s his response:

“While we’re continuing to work with the FTC, there is overwhelming evidence that mobile advertising will remain competitive after this deal closes. Mobile app advertising is less than two years old, there are more than a dozen mobile ad networks, app developers and advertisers routinely use multiple networks, and the leading mobile app platform, Apple, is now entering the mobile ad space as well.”

Wrote The Deal’s Cecile Kohrs: “A proposed joint venture between rival Internet companies Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. appears headed for the trash bin, just ahead of an expected U.S. Department of Justice challenge to the agreement, lawyers close to the deal said.”

Well, maybe it will die at some point. But, in the words of Juba in the last line of the greatest movie ever (“Gladiator,” of course!): Not yet.

Said Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich: “We are continuing to have cooperative discussions with the Department of Justice about this arrangement and agreed to a brief delay in implementing the agreement while those discussions continue. We are confident that the arrangement is beneficial to competition, but we are not going to discuss the details of the process.”

It was a sentiment underscored by Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was doing an economic summit with Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama today in Florida and told reporters there when asked about the deal: “We agreed to extend our discussions … with the DOJ.”

Yahoo’s CEO Jerry Yang also said the same during Yahoo’s third-quarter earnings call this afternoon.

In fact, that Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO) lawyers, along with the Justice Department, are still talking is the strongest indication that there might be some middle ground to be found in the fight over the future of the search advertising business.

After all, Google is not shy about going to court. Among many others, it took on media giant Viacom over YouTube’s copyright issues with all the relish of a lipstick-wearing pit bull.

In fact, I am convinced that the search giant’s corporate mantra is from Travis Bickle in “Taxi Driver”: You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talking … you talking to me? Well, I’m the only one here.

And Yahoo? Well, Yahoo can never stop talking, as evidenced recently by its never-ending discussions to merge with the Time Warner (TWX) online unit, AOL.

This is an overall corporate characteristic–Yahoo often has the tone of a 1970s encounter group.

Plus, the deal to put some Google search ads on its site is an important fountain of revenue Yahoo desperately needs. For its part, Google wants the deal, mostly to keep Microsoft (MSFT) at bay.

As for the Justice Department, it has one big problem if it does go hot and files a lawsuit against the Yahoogle twins: A little thing I like to call “proof.”

Now I am no legal eagle, but I am told by experts that it is a little hard to prove damage that has not occurred yet if it is seeking an injunction to stop implementation of the partnership.

It’s like the big question in that dumb but watchable Tom Cruise movie, “Minority Report”: Can you arrest someone for a murder they might commit?

Google, with its dominant market share that grows daily, may very well be the scariest company on the planet.

(I think it might indeed be and have written in opposition many times to this partnership of the No. 1 and No. 2 players in the search space, but who am I to say?)

But making a case that it will turn Yahoo into a satellite, raise ad prices and turn into Godzilla, all before it actually happens, is tough.

More to the point, with all the pressure from public interest groups and advertisers who oppose the deal without some checks and balances, along with Microsoft’s relentless lobbying, some accommodation obviously must be made.

Thus, that is going to take more days of jabbering, probably into next week (although it all does have to be settled before the election, when the regulators pressing the case might be out of a job).

After those blabby avenues are exhausted, of course, we might very well see the digital gladiators go at it. Or abandon the field.

But not yet.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

(Quick synopsis of the extremely obvious: Once-politically dopey Microsoft has gone all K Street, although stumbly Google is learning fast to line up its lobbying ducks too! Mayhem to ensue.)

Thank goodness then for the liveliest part, which came when the Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) talking heads squared off.

Just like the dudes pictured here. Schwiiiiing!

Sadly, there is no word from the PR person for Yahoo (YHOO), who is probably the smartest one of the three for not entering the fray.

Because, if you close yours eyes, the email messages to the Times’s reporter from the pair sound almost like the spokesmen for dueling presidential candidates and are just as illuminating (except “cacophony of concerns” is kind of a pretty turn of phrase)!

But you be the judge:

Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans:

There’s an old rule in debate: if you’re not winning on substance, talk about the process. Anyone who suggests that lobbying by one party is responsible for the overwhelming opposition to the deal simply isn’t listening to the cacophony of concerns expressed by advertisers, publishers, consumer groups, legal experts and lawmakers.

Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich:

There is no doubt that Microsoft has been the most energetic opponent of this agreement and has worked hard from behind the scenes to generate much of the opposition to this deal. But most people in Washington have dismissed those efforts as a big company simply trying to slow down its competitors.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.