I too was unsure of this, so I google'd it :P

Didn't find anything on Office but Microsoft have admited to stealing code from Plurk for some blogging thing:

Plurk has issued an official response to Redmond's apology for stealing Plurk's code for use in the microblogging service Juku. The startup isn't ruling out taking the software giant to court. "We are still thinking of pursuing the full extent of our legal options available due the seriousness of the situation. Basically, Microsoft accepts responsibility, but they don't offer accountability."

Earlier this week, Plurk accused Microsoft of stealing about 80 percent of its code to create the microblog Juku for MSN China. Redmond responded by pulling the site down and starting an investigation. So far, Microsoft has "acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied," though it blamed a vendor for doing the stealing, which was "in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture, and equally inconsistent with Microsoft's policies respecting intellectual property."

Plurk further explained that it has only been around for two years, still doesn't have a marketing department or a sales department, and that all capital is put toward development. The startup even offers open source code for some parts of its efforts. After trying to win over the reader by showing how small, but hard-working the company is, Plurk gets serious again. Apparently, Microsoft went to great lengths to the steal the code, according to Plurk: "This event wasn't just a simple matter of merely lifting code; due to the nature of the uniqueness of our product and user interface, it took a good amount of deliberate studying and digging through our codes with the full intention of replicating our product user experience, functionality, and end results."

Microsoft then had the advantage of its huge marketing budget for promoting its "innovative product" while Plurk stood by the wayside. At least Microsoft's huge mistake is giving Plurk a ton of free publicity.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/plurk-microsoft-went-to-great-lengths-to-steal-code.ars

Edit: Just did a Bing search and it came up with the same results, lol.

I read it as you meant Bing as in Big and the n being Not so not big... whats not to get

I just remembered something.  My wife's been using BING on her school issued Dell laptop PC.  when I told her BING is a Microsoft search engine.  She stopped using it.  She is so funny (And cool, too!).

That's not how it would work... See scottie's post. Though I heard the B was "Because"

Bing marketshare in search > PS3 and Xbox 360 individual marketshare in console sales...

So you can answer your question based that.

I did some research about this...asked a few people who do search and with this claim Google is the pot calling the kettle black here. I can't believe they would bring this issue to light when they have been doing it since dawn of time.

This happened using the Bing TOOLBAR, not search engine... Bing Toolbar is designed to use user-behaviour patterns to improve results. To a few weeks later it gave the same result.

Considering that when the Google Toolbar is installed and you use Bing, it sends that clickstream data to Google...How can Google believe that type of software behavior is anything other than Bing doing the exact same thing they themselves do? Google toolbar works the SAME!

Is this the new and fast-moving Google that Larry Page had in mind when he took over?  After Facebook takes all the creative engineers away from Google all that will be left is a group of nerds like the ones here crying foul when a formidable competitor uses their own tricks against them.

Thanks for doing the reasearch it seemed it might be something like this as it took a few weeks for the pages to start showing up on bing. Hopefully this compition between bing/ms and google will benifet us consumers

Not exactly the same thing.  This seems like a case of Microsoft hiring a 3rd party to develop something for them and the 3rd party was the one who used the open source code.  Hardly indicative of Microsoft as a whole.

I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't been known to use some ruthless tactics in the past and steamrolling smaller companies, but clearly the original poster I was responding to was just making up crap hoping no one would question it.

Of course, he hasn't come back to offer any sort of proof.

I have very little sympathy for Google in this case ever since the Google Books fiasco where they just decided it was their right to copy every book ever published, even those they didn't own the copyrights to.

http://news.cnet.com/Googles-battle-over-library-books/2100-1025_3-5907506.html

This is reprehensible if true, and it appears it is. It doesn't matter if Google are better or worse, all that matters is that Google's services are being misrepresented as another company's work. That's not on and should be remedied immediately with Google recompensed appropriatelty. That's how business works, like it or not.

Now, does this mean Microsoft, who already have history in copying from others in one shape or another, endorse this sort of thing? Of course not. Microsoft, in this context, doesn't even exist as a thinking entity; this is down to the mistakes and errors of individuals working in one small department of a huge company. When you employ around 90,000 people, a few bad eggs will slip in no matter how you try to avoid it; mistakes will happen. That's clearly what we have here: a mistake that should never have happened. Do you really think theft of this kind would ever be endorsed by a company as huge as Microsoft? Do you honestly think it is standard Microsoft practice to steal from others? Do you, hand on heart, think it's not stupid individuals that cause these problems, but company policy as a whole?

Yes?

Do you really think that tin-foil hat looks good on you?