I completely agree, I was just looking at the problem from a different perspective. My real point is, no one is willing to pay for something when the identical thing is free. I always thought the way to make money was to provide something which people are more than happy to pay for. Sounds like he'd like the government to provide him a profit so he doesn't really have to compete or provide something worth paying for.
I really don't mind him getting Google to de-list the company's 'products.' And I'm even willing to let M$ throw their cash at him!
But, to be legal, I would think that the products should be available for sale to
any search engine that wanted to pay, even if some couldn't come up with the price. May not sound "fair," but "news" is, so far, not a controlled commodity. The "owner" can set whatever price he wants.
If that means dragging MS down with him, I have no problem with it.
I wonder if they shred/burn all hard copies of their printed work?
You wouldn't want any 'dumpster divers' gathering their news!
As an aside, but related, a good friend of ours decided not to renew his subscription to the only local paper. They "discovered" this and called asking why he didn't renew. "Local news and Editorials are slanted in their reporting." The paper asked if they gave him a significant discount, would he re-consider subscribing. He simply asked, "Would that change the slant?" End of phone call...