Thank you for your detailed comments. We will make all clarifications below in the next version. We note that our formulation in Sec 3.2 can handle any Learning the constraints automatically is a direction for future work. There are important differences compared to Diligenti et al. We said that Diligenti and Mehta are task specific since they only experiment on a single task. Jin et al. assume arbitrary non-convex non-concave form for a twice We will add this important theorem in the paper.

Motivated by sequential budgeted allocation problems, we investigate online matching problems where connections between vertices are not i.i.d., but they have fixed

Motivated by sequential budgeted allocation problems, we investigate online matching problems where connections between vertices are not i.i.d., but they have fixed

After deflecting the US Department of Justice's attack on its illegal monopoly in online search, Google is facing another attempt to dismantle its internet empire in a trial focused on abusive tactics in digital advertising. The trial that opened Monday in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal court revolves around the harmful conduct that resulted in US district Judge Leonie Brinkema declaring parts of Google's digital advertising technology to be an illegal monopoly in April. The judge found that Google has been engaging in behavior that stifles competition to the detriment of online publishers that depend on the system for revenue. Google and the justice department will spend the next two weeks in court presenting evidence in a "remedy" trial that will culminate in Brinkema issuing a ruling on how to restore fair market conditions. If the justice department gets its way, Brinkema will order Google to sell parts of its ad technology - a proposal that the company's lawyers warned would "invite disruption and damage" to consumers and the internet's ecosystem.

The reason for the relative tameness of the penalty is the emergence of real competition to Google - what the case concerned in the first place. The reason for the relative tameness of the penalty is the emergence of real competition to Google - what the case concerned in the first place. An antitrust apocalypse has been averted, and it's all down to its biggest competitor, according to the judge who could've forced Google to sell Chrome I'm your host, Blake Montgomery, writing to you as I finish the audiobook version of Don DeLillo's White Noise, which I can't say I found compelling. In tech - artificial intelligence is having its day in court with an 11th-hour appearance in Google's landmark antitrust trial and Anthropic's major settlement with book authors. Google dodged a catastrophic breakup, and it has its biggest competitor to thank for that, according to the judge who could have forced the tech giant to sell off Chrome, the most popular web browser in the world, and perhaps Android, the world's most widely used mobile operating system.

A judge ruled on Tuesday that Google would not be forced to sell its Chrome browser or the Android operating system, saving the tech giant from the most severe penalties sought by the US government. The same judge had ruled in favor of US prosecutors nearly a year ago, finding that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly with its namesake search engine. Groups critical of Google's dominance in the internet search and online advertising industry are furious. They contend the judge missed an opportunity to enact meaningful change in an industry that has suffocated under the crushing weight of its heaviest player. Tech industry groups and investors, by contrast, are thrilled. Shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company, have risen 9% since Tuesday afternoon.

For almost a year, the future of the world's most popular web browser has been a question mark. After the United States declared Google an illegal monopoly in online search, federal prosecutors put forth a forced divestment of Chrome as one possible legal remedy. The case is now resolved, pending appeal, and Google won't have to sell Chrome. Instead, Google will have to provide search index data and amalgamated user metrics to at least some of its competitors. Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the government prosecutors couldn't prove that Google's dominance in the browser space--just under 70 percent of market share, at the time of writing--was essential to its illegal monopoly in search, as Ars Technica reports.

Google will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday in the tech giant's ongoing legal battle over being ruled a monopoly last year. The company will be barred from certain exclusive deals with device makers and must share data from its search engine with competitors, the judge ruled. Judge Amit Mehta's ruling follows months of speculation surrounding what penalties Google would face as a result of his decision last year that the company violated antitrust laws as it built what he called an online search monopoly. The ruling, one of the most significant antitrust cases in decades, resulted in an additional hearing in April to determine what actions the government should take as a remedy. Mehta's decision to allow Google to keep Chrome represents a more lenient outcome for the company than what federal prosecutors requested: force the tech giant sell off its marquee search product and to ban it from entering the browser market for five years.

Thank you for your detailed comments. We will make all clarifications below in the next version. We note that our formulation in Sec 3.2 can handle any Learning the constraints automatically is a direction for future work. There are important differences compared to Diligenti et al. We said that Diligenti and Mehta are task specific since they only experiment on a single task. Jin et al. assume arbitrary non-convex non-concave form for a twice We will add this important theorem in the paper.

Motivated by sequential budgeted allocation problems, we investigate online matching problems where connections between vertices are not i.i.d., but they have fixed