<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> But the idea that facts indexed by Google could be tainted is a<br>
> stretch. It's not something they've tried to claim, it would be a<br>
> tenuous legal argument, and it doesn't make much sense. I think this<br>
> is a case where practical judgment must outweigh theoretical concerns.<br>
</span>They have at least historically made noises about 3rd parties (aka MS)<br>
using their search results.</blockquote></div><br>In this case, though, Microsoft was actually directly copying Google's search results, and directly admitted to it. <a href="http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914">http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914</a></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">That situation is actually closer to being analogous to taking a copy of Walden and crossing out Henry David Thoreau's name and writing in your own.</div></div>