Thank you for that link, that was interesting, as was the companion article. (I had not heard of this before so it was a fascinating read)
Interestingly enough, MS doesn't deny that it uses Googles 'signal' sometimes and even Google puts it at around 9% tops, and it took nearly two weeks for similar results to resembling Googles honeypot to show up on Bing. If it was as nefarious as Google tried to make it I would think it would happen faster. They do deny wholesale scraping (I use both frequently, as they do tend to be quite different for the most part, and occasionally one or the other picks up something totally unique.) and even Google doesn't accuse them of that.
I wonder how many other search engines do a similar thing under the radar? The only real beef seems to be whether it's ethical to do so. Considering this comes from two companies who's ethics are at best suspect, I don't see that it matters much.
As the author of both articles says :
"If I could go back and change only one thing in my original story, Iâ€(TM)d have made the headline â€oeGoogle: Bing Is Cheating, Copying SOME Of Our Search Results.â€ I explained at length in the article itself that most of Bingâ€(TM)s results were unique. But the headline was taken by some to mean that Bing copied all of Googleâ€(TM)s results."