The key question seems to be, if n is the information content in the page (ie number of bits needed to distinguish from a random search engine results page), wh

The key question seems to be, if n is the information content in the page (ie number of bits needed to distinguish from a random search engine results page), what fraction of n would not be there without Google's ranking algorithm. In the case of the honeypot pages, clearly the number is 100%. In the cases of other results pages, we merely have Google's claim that the similarity has been rising over time, and that they attribute it to info extracted from Google. Using information that people provide about where they click (hopefully with some kind of informed consent), in order to improve your algorithm, seems reasonable enough. If a large part of the info ended up coming from Google's algorithm, it starts to seems sketchy, and it's legitimate for Google to whinge. Not that whinging ever stopped any other company, particularly Microsoft, from trying to take advantage of other companies' IP.