Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Feb 2011 22:44 UTC, submitted by LouisBarman
Google The web is already aflame with Google's accusation that Bing is stealing its search results. Google created code to manually rank certain bogus search terms, and ten created mock web pages as the top search results for these bogus terms. It turned out that Bing would list the exact same mock web pages as its top search result for these bogus terms. Google is unhappy with it, but in all honesty - since when is it wrong to copy in the computer business?
E-mail Print r 5   · Read More · 42 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 460661
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Priceless
by Tony Swash on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 11:57 UTC in reply to "Priceless"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

I find myself in an extremely unusual position - feeling more sympathetic to Microsoft than to their opponent!

I was going to write about Google's appalling self satisfied hypocrisy but then I came across this by Daniel Eran Dilger who says it much better than I would have.

" - this is Google claiming to be wronged by the reuse of the information it makes publicly available. The company that says it does no evil and loves freedom of ideas and sharing free and open source software.

This is the company that made its fortune on a business model stolen from Overture, that it later paid off in an out of court settlement with Yahoo. This is the company that appropriated Sun’s Java platform and changed just enough to avoid paying Sun to use its technology in the development of Android. The same firm that then turned Android into an iPhone workalike in order to turn its partnership with Apple into a predatory research session.

This is the company that indexes blogs, newspapers, and both digital and physical books, and then makes all this information available without consent in the contexts of its ads and paid search space, and is dismissal of anyone who objects to Google’s ultra liberal sense of copyright. It generated controversy by driving trucks around the world to take photos of everything, connecting to WiFi base stations as it went to suck up random data it could use.

Google copies every original idea it can find, like a massive information sponge, sucking up business models and innovative creations and forming its own duplicates, often with little success. In the last year, its most obvious advances were copies of Twitter… and the revised layout of Bing.

Install the Google Toolbar and do a search of Bing, and Google actually directs your clickstream back for its own analysis. And really, that appears to be all Bing is doing, as it offers a similar option to record users’ behaviors and upload it back to Bing to improve its results."

Spot on.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Priceless
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 11:59 in reply to "RE: Priceless"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Quoting Daniel Eril Didupdidup defeats your point. He is the biggest fraud in the tech industry - an even bigger fraud than John Gruber.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Priceless
by Tony Swash on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 15:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Priceless"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Quoting Daniel Eril Didupdidup defeats your point. He is the biggest fraud in the tech industry - an even bigger fraud than John Gruber.


Presumably when you say "fraud" what you mean is that both writers say things that you disagree with. Interesting choice of words as it implies that to hold a view different to your own is somehow illegitimate, fraudulent, perhaps even criminal.

We all have differing and sometimes strong views on many topics, let's just try to accept that to hold opposing view is legitimate and actually rather healthy.

I would like to know what you actually disagree with in the quote I posted.

Also if Google (or you) believes that information needs to be free then is there anything inherently wrong with Bing using Google information to improve it's search results?.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Priceless
by vodoomoth on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 13:17 in reply to "RE: Priceless"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

It might be spot on but this is just wrong:

It generated controversy by driving trucks around the world to take photos of everything, connecting to WiFi base stations as it went to suck up random data it could use.


For that to be true, there should have been an intent to collect "random data". Uhm, I'm sure anyone with more than two neurons knows the odds of finding anything useful using that method. If I were asked, I would say extremely improbable. People with Google are smarter than me, at the very least, some people. So no, writing what he wrote is just adding more little stones on one side of the balance without respect for their color or shape.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Priceless
by Tony Swash on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 15:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Priceless"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

It might be spot on but this is just wrong:
"It generated controversy by driving trucks around the world to take photos of everything, connecting to WiFi base stations as it went to suck up random data it could use.


For that to be true, there should have been an intent to collect "random data". Uhm, I'm sure anyone with more than two neurons knows the odds of finding anything useful using that method. If I were asked, I would say extremely improbable. People with Google are smarter than me, at the very least, some people. So no, writing what he wrote is just adding more little stones on one side of the balance without respect for their color or shape.
"

So Google collected the data by accident? In Several countries? A company whose business model, sole business model, is to collect data on people's activities and use it to sell targeted advertising is collecting data by accident?

Reply Parent Score: 2