MS Bing: Technilogical Plagiarism

  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the allegations of technological plagiarism involving Microsoft Bing and Google, specifically focusing on the use of Google's search results by Bing. Participants explore the implications of intellectual property (IP) and copyright in the context of technology and the internet, questioning the ethics and practices of major tech companies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over Microsoft's practices, suggesting that Bing's use of Google's search results constitutes plagiarism or theft, rather than legitimate competition.
  • Others argue that the concept of IP and copyright may be outdated, as ideas can be easily reverse-engineered and shared online.
  • There is a viewpoint that the competitive landscape allows for companies to copy successful products without significant innovation, leading to a cycle of low-quality offerings.
  • Some participants highlight that using Google's results as part of a search algorithm is not inherently wrong, as the results are public domain, but question the lack of credit given to Google.
  • A few participants note that Google's own practices, such as adopting features from Bing, complicate the narrative of originality and plagiarism in tech.
  • Concerns are raised about the ethical implications of companies prioritizing profit over innovation, with some suggesting that this trend is prevalent across various industries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the ethics of Bing's practices. While some believe that Bing's actions are a clear case of plagiarism, others argue that such practices are common in the tech industry and not unique to Microsoft. The discussion remains unresolved with competing views on the nature of IP and the responsibilities of tech companies.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of defining plagiarism in the context of technology and the internet, as well as the evolving nature of IP laws and practices. There is also a recognition of the limitations in understanding how search algorithms function, which contributes to the uncertainty in the discussion.

nismaratwork
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/02/google.bing.sting/index.html?iref=NS1

CNN said:
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The search giant set up random results for odd searches to catch its rival
Google's results started showing up on Bing "within weeks," it says
Bing doesn't deny using Google results but suggests they are one factor among many
Bing is "recycling," Google says; Bing shoots back that Google ran a "stunt"

Ooooh... well, I guess it's back to Google! Oh wait... nobody left Google. Oh MS, is there no law you respect, and in the land of IP you piss on that of others?

I have to ask, if it takes a Google to catch an MS at this kind of thing, what the heck do the rest of us do? IP has emerged as this vibrant and critical force in the US economy, but from the end-user to the people at the top of the food chain, it seems some kind piracy/plagiarism is just DONE.

What the hell?!
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
I don't really know about this one, as the very concept of IP and copyright are likely to be outdated concepts (or at least the interpretation will be radically different) before my life is out. The minute something is out, you can slap all the protection on it you want, but it'll be reverse engineered and freely available soon enough.

People have stolen ideas since the dawn of time, it's nothing new, and to be honest not really surprising. The internet just makes it easy.
 
Isn't that what Microsoft are best at?
 
Chris: True, but in history you could try and sell a better product. Now it can be a shoddy product with a big marketing budget.

cobalt: AFAIK... yes.
 
nismaratwork said:
Chris: True, but in history you could try and sell a better product. Now it can be a shoddy product with a big marketing budget.

Don't lose sight of the goal for selling anything. Profit.

Why try to market a better product, with all the necessary teething problems? When you can rip something off, stick a new label on it and have a gauranteed sale with none of the risk of a new product. Low margins, but 6 months later you just do it again.

This is endemic of every single industry in the world, especially film and music.

The result is the same old crap, time and time again.



EDIT: Also as a personal comment to this. From an operations perspective it would be utterly stupid for any search engine not to scan Google's results as part of their search algorithm. The results are in the public domain, Google can't really complain. They aren't directly just using google's results page.

This reminds me of my drive home from work, there is a motorway (M58 if anyone knows it) where two lanes of cars queue for 800 yards to get to the roundabout. Yet no one (apart from a few people) uses the 3rd lane which merges at 200 yards. People see it as 'pushing in', but the lane is there to be used.
 
xxChrisxx said:
Don't lose sight of the goal for selling anything. Profit.

Why try to market a better product, with all the necessary teething problems? When you can rip something off, stick a new label on it and have a gauranteed sale with none of the risk of a new product. Low margins, but 6 months later you just do it again.

This is endemic of every single industry in the world, especially film and music.

The result is the same old crap, time and time again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for true halcyon days, just more time to innovate before someone else just started doing EXACTLY what you do. In film and music, I think it's just biding time between the rare gifted artists who show up. Still, in a world of a million types of vodka... VODKA!... ideally a flavorless and odorless spirit... I get it, and I know you're right.

I don't have to like it however. I'd add, there's copying, and then there's pure plagiarism... and then there's copying nonsense results automatically, because you so depend on another company's algorithms that you don't even screen the results yourself. This isn't a copy, it's a literal copy and paste on a time delay.


xxChrisxx said:
EDIT: Also as a personal comment to this. From an operations perspective it would be utterly stupid for any search engine not to scan Google's results as part of their search algorithm. The results are in the public domain, Google can't really complain. They aren't directly just using google's results page.

This reminds me of my drive home from work, there is a motorway (M58 if anyone knows it) where two lanes of cars queue for 800 yards to get to the roundabout. Yet no one (apart from a few people) uses the 3rd lane which merges at 200 yards. People see it as 'pushing in', but the lane is there to be used.

True, but they're not just polling google's results and running them through their own process; Google caught them flat-footed with those "unlikely" search terms, because you're demonstrating that it's not a "ripoff" as you describe in movies and music, or even a remake... it's theft of an existing product to the point of rote repetition of nonsense.
 
nismaratwork said:
True, but they're not just polling google's results and running them through their own process; Google caught them flat-footed with those "unlikely" search terms, because you're demonstrating that it's not a "ripoff" as you describe in movies and music, or even a remake... it's theft of an existing product to the point of rote repetition of nonsense.

I won't pretend to know what I'm talking about with how search engines work. As it's all a giant black box to me.
So long as google continues to direct me to whatever I want to see I'm happy.

I also remember a time before google... sigh.
 
xxChrisxx said:
I won't pretend to know what I'm talking about with how search engines work. As it's all a giant black box to me.
So long as google continues to direct me to whatever I want to see I'm happy.

I also remember a time before google... sigh.

I hear you... I remember a time before the internet. *age presses*
 
Even if Bing uses some of Google's search results, that's no different than any other search engine that presents results from multiple search engines...
 
  • #10
Mech_Engineer said:
Even if Bing uses some of Google's search results, that's no different than any other search engine that presents results from multiple search engines...

Well, there's the obvious lack of credit given, and the degree: remember the "sting" element was to prove just the point that MS went beyond the normal practices, even of this nasty business.
 
  • #11
Mech_Engineer said:
Even if Bing uses some of Google's search results, that's no different than any other search engine that presents results from multiple search engines...

Full disclosure: Google fanboy here

This is pretty much true. It's not like Microsoft has somehow cracked the "PageRank" system and is implementing Google's server-side algorithms on Bing servers. It's still a kind of slimy practice given that Microsoft spends so much time advertising their search engine in commercials that no one pays attention to.

EDIT: Would anyone consider my search engine a serious piece of technology is I simply entered the users query into Google, and reported back the findings but embedded photos of scantily-clad women in the results?

DOUBLE EDIT: Wait... that's a really good... hmm...
 
  • #12
hadn't noticed the Bing thing, but Google did copy Bing's pretty slick image search interface.
 
  • #13
Proton Soup said:
hadn't noticed the Bing thing, but Google did copy Bing's pretty slick image search interface.

Hmm... so that's it.

I really hate the image search now, then again I hated it when they introduced that auto search and the new interface. So maybe I just hate change.
 
  • #14
Proton Soup said:
hadn't noticed the Bing thing, but Google did copy Bing's pretty slick image search interface.

That's like saying Leibniz copied Newton when he invented calculus. The fact that the new image search was made available within about 3 months of the Bing image search means that it was in development for a long time preceding that.

Maybe they over-heard the idea in the proverbial shared lunchroom?
 
  • #15
FlexGunship said:
That's like saying Leibniz copied Newton when he invented calculus. The fact that the new image search was made available within about 3 months of the Bing image search means that it was in development for a long time preceding that.

Maybe they over-heard the idea in the proverbial shared lunchroom?

really? because i found it relatively craptastic in comparison. almost as if some coder had slapped it together overnight.
 
  • #16
Proton Soup said:
really? because i found it relatively craptastic in comparison. almost as if some coder had slapped it together overnight.

Hmm, I guess we have differing opinions on it then. I find it useful and reliable.
 
  • #17
Craptastic?! I've never heard that before... I love it! :loves:

The rest... I agree with Flex on this one, but I stand by my original point: this may not be theft of the underlying technology, but for MS to lift search results from Google to make their own engine work?... it's not good.

Above all, Google has done one thing for most people who read this article: MS looks foolish, and Bing derivative; really that may not be true, but that's the image this creates.
 
  • #18
Does anyone hate the new trend that shows how many times something's been shared on Facebook, or live twitter feeds from idiots that are tweeting on a topic?

Does anyone know if it's possible to eliminate that crap from searches?
 
  • #19
FlexGunship said:
Hmm, I guess we have differing opinions on it then. I find it useful and reliable.

i just looked again. initially, google lacked some smoothness in their implementation, and it would sometimes crash the browser. now, the thing i am finding that i don't like about bing is it won't let me center or right click and open selections in new tabs. you have to left click, which keeps you captured in bing with the site in a second frame. you can click the address, which opens the found site in a new tab, but it's a two step process, and it seems to be designed around keeping you captive. so, i'd say it's annoying now, but they were still there first, with a better design initially.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Does anyone hate the new trend that shows how many times something's been shared on Facebook, or live twitter feeds from idiots that are tweeting on a topic?

Does anyone know if it's possible to eliminate that crap from searches?

Sure. Just search on Google or Wikipedia, instead of Facebook.

I'm not being flippant, Evo. I've simply come to the conclusion that FB is a decent forum for me to (potentially) reach a couple hundred of my closest aquaintences over the years, while seeing what a dozen of friends are actually up to (out of 200, only 30 actively post; probably only 30 actively read, either).

I never search on FB, though, as it's like playing pin the tail on the garbage dump.
 

Similar threads

Chemically regenerating my auto's catalytic converter?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K