So the "hiybbprqag" thing was just a fluke, huh? Citation needed.
Those click-throughs are weighted with 100s of other factors to establish a presence and relevance in Bing's index.
A dozen Google engineers spent a considerable time and effort trying to insert terms into Bing's index using the IE toolbar.
And all they could do was get a dozen terms through, nonsense terms such as "hiybbprqag", that had no other ranking factors. That last part is the important part (figure it out if you can).
What I call this is spamming, with a 10% success rate (I think they tried to game 100 terms into Bing’s index). And then Google spined it for all it was worth. Reporting CTR on links is about as standard as it gets.
If you seriously don't see the problem with that, then it doesn't brook further discussion. If your competitors got a leg up on your business to any degree because they were able to post-process the results of your work, you'd be furious.
Watching IE (+toolbar) users' behavior is not the same thing as using Google's work.
If you can't come to terms with the way click-stream data is gathered and how post processing works, that's your failure, not Bing's.
It's like if you don't get spoon fed exactly the flavor you expect (the one that agrees with your preconceived notion), you spit it back in my face.
Google came out and blatantly said Microsoft is copying its index. That is nothing more than a simple lie, that's designed to be easier to believe over a more complex truth.