Google don't object to meta search engines (e.g. Dogpile) aggregating their results with those of other search engines.

Google are objecting to Bing seemingly passing off Google results as Bing's own (and not including their ads, no doubt).

It's clearly legitimate for Bing to index a Google results page if it follows a link to it (assuming absence of robots.txt etc) and visa versa.

Does it matter that Bing obtained the Google results via a search from a human not affiliated with Bing?

Does it matter that Google blocks crawlers from accessing its search results, using robots.txt?

Does it matter that Google's result pages don't include the noindex instruction?

Tbh, if I was Google I'd mark my results as noindex and see whether Bing respected that.

That's why it's interesting.

You say Google adds value. Other's don't think so.

Why can't I add value to Google's content and present it in my own way?

I didn't say that Google adds value. Are you talking about Google Search, Google News, or another of their activities as "adding value" or not? Please don't put words into my mouth.

I'm talking about Google taking pictures of my house, snippets of books i've written or or other people's web pages with copies of articles i've written and displaying them without my permission. They seem to think that's ok because they "added value".

Well now people are adding value to Google's products and presenting them in a new way. This opens up a can of worms for Google.

"fair use" is a well-established practice for all of those things except (possibly) search results

Explain what you mean when you say that Google makes money by aggregating other people's content? Google makes money by indexing other people's content and driving traffic to other people's sites. That hardly seems like a bad thing.

http://books.google.com is considered one of the more egregious examples, with many authors and publicists having complained about Google taking samples of the content and posting it online. I did a Google search a while back on a graphics issue, and got the answer I needed from a Google book search result. You could argue (as Google does) that they are really just helping promote the book. But I have no need too buy - I got the answer for free.

Would you have bought that book just to get that one answer? Would you have known the book even had the information you needed without Google's help?

Google News is an aggregator, hence Rupert Murdoch's problem with it.

Maybe not directly, but I am quite sure that Google uses Google News to enhance search results (they know more about you and your interest), and so indirectly makes money.