Bing is being parasitic to Google in this situation by generating no value for them.
Well, perhaps Microsoft thinks its business involves providing value to their customers rather than its competitors. What seems consistently missing from the Google PR campaign has been how Microsoft's behavior is a bad thing for the user.
Google doesn't spend exorbitant amounts of money so that they can provide value to Bing's users. If Bing's users want value they can use Google instead.
Again you put the focus on Google. And again I ask, how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user?
Bing's increasing market share is presumably already due to providing value. If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft", do you think that's going to make people less inclined to try Bing?
Because the focus is on Google vs. Bing, not Google vs. Bing's users or Google's users vs. Bing or users vs. users.
>how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user?
It's not harming Bing's users to provide Google's results. What's in it for Google to help Bing's users? It's not as if Google is an NPO humanitarian effort to help people find the information they seek.
>If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft"
Obscure misspelled words are just one thing that Bing is able to get better results on thanks to this. They also benefit from every other kind of query that a user can make on Google.
Well, perhaps Microsoft thinks its business involves providing value to their customers rather than its competitors. What seems consistently missing from the Google PR campaign has been how Microsoft's behavior is a bad thing for the user.