From a logical debating point of view, this post is really weak. If I were an engineer at Google, and I caught Bing at this, I would be upset, to the point I couldn't sleep. This is one of the lowest things you can do in academia, and even though this is business, the accomplishments of the engineering team at Google is at the highest point of information technology. As a businessman I could have taken this, not as a hacker/problem solver.

"It was interesting to watch the level of protest and feigned outrage from Google. One wonders what brought them to a place where they would level these kinds of accusations."
Feigned outrage... one wonders... If you really not understand this, you are not a hacker, you are not an engineer. Maybe it was your actions that prompted two valued Google engineers (Singhal and Cutts) to make these accusations?

"Before we explore that (so you gonna prove this point later on?), let me clear up a few things once and for all.

We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop."
The end result is a copy of the results of a competitor. If you borrow it, steal it from your users, copy it from a guy in a raincoat with binoculars, observing Google results and jotting them down -- It doesn't matter! OK, let's say you don't copy results. Your index still contains copied results for a fact.

"We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting."
Bing copied Google's fake results. Your engineers either deliberately or accidentally made Bing copy those results. If you want less insulting: Google claims your minds are the best at copying others.

"
We do look at anonymous click stream data as one of more than a thousand inputs into our ranking algorithm. We learn from our customers as they traverse the web, a common practice in helping to improve a wide array of online services. We have been clear about this for a couple of years (see Directions on Microsoft report, June 15, 2009).
"
That will make me trust your index a lot less. If engineers clicking manually on some results can make a difference in ranking, imagine what a botnet or dedicated spammer can do.

"
Google engaged in a “honeypot” attack to trick Bing. In simple terms, Google’s “experiment” was rigged to manipulate Bing search results through a type of attack also known as “click fraud.” That’s right, the same type of attack employed by spammers on the web to trick consumers and produce bogus search results. What does all this cloak and dagger click fraud prove? Nothing anyone in the industry doesn’t already know. As we have said before and again in this post, we use click stream optionally provided by consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals to try and determine whether a site might make sense to be in our index.
"
Ad hominems: Honeypot, trick, quotes:experiment, rigged, manipulate, attack, click fraud, attack, spammers, trick consumers, bogus, cloak dagger, click fraud, prove? nothing. If you need those words in a paragraph to describe how you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, then you already lost.

"
Now let’s move the conversation to what might really be going on behind the scenes.
"
Yes, move the conversation away from your duplicate results, the key issue at hand.

"
Bing was launched nearly two years ago .to break new ground and help move the search industry in new directions. We have brought a number of things to market that we are very proud of -- our daily home page photos, infinite scroll in image search, great travel and shopping experiences, a new and more useful visual approach to search, and partnerships with key leaders like Facebook and Twitter. If you are keeping tabs, you will notice Google has “copied” a few of these. Whether they have done it well we leave to customers. But more importantly, we take no issue and are glad we could help move the industry to adopt some good ideas.
"
copies marketing paragraph. Rebuttal: Google didn't use its toolbar to "copy" your pictures and add those to their own background.

"
At the same time, we have been making steady, quiet progress on core search relevance. In October 2010 we released a series of big, noticeable improvements to Bing’s relevance. So big and noticeable that we are told Google took notice and began to worry. Then a short time later, here come the honeypot attacks. Is the timing purely coincidence? Are industry discussions about search quality to be ignored? Is this simply a response to the fact that some people in the industry are beginning to ask whether Bing is as good or in some cases better than Google on core web relevance?
"
Bing is absolutely horrible for international searches. You serve up 40 different language Wikipedia pages for some terms. But you are saying, that Google deliberately timed your outings? That is like saying your brother saw you stealing cookies, but waited till he got a bad report card, before telling mom. And I thought a bruised academic ego was childish. So your rebutal amounts to: But mom! He got a bad report card! And that while you are struggling making your grades yourself.

"
Clearly that’s a question that will continue in heated debate as long as there is a search industry. Here at Bing we will continue to focus on our customers, and try to provide some great innovation for consumers and the industry.
"
That's not the question and certainly not core to this case, which is your duplicate index. This is unprecedented in 10 years of search engine competition, and you want to make it about the timing? Let's make it about the 1000 ranking factors vs. the 200 ranking factor from Google. Lets make it about the million other results this could be happening for, but are impossible to prove with a "honeypot attack" and specific keyword? Lets make it about search relevance, how we are spoiled with relevant results, yet complain about the most relevant index on the web, one you use to calibrate long tail terms and spelling corrections?