Microsoft sponsors many top people in computer science and allows them to spend time on pure research and to publish academic papers. Ever heard of Simon Peyton Jones or Sir Tony Hoare?
How can that be bad?
For example, Microsoft pays most of the top Haskell developers to research and develop Haskell. There's no patents on that, and the source code and papers are all freely available. Microsoft isn't turning it into a product, it's just doing it to better computer science, to increase their standing, and to inform their other products such as C#.
And you say that's bad? Fuck you.
It is true that a portion of the research sponsored by Microsoft is published as academic papers, but I'd suspect that, in relation to the vast amount of money Microsoft is spending on R&D, those papers represent less than 1% of the results. We never hear about the hundreds of millions spent where the results never saw the light of day.
These accusations are false. MSR does not generally patent their work. I'm in language research and have not encountered any of their work that they've patented. Also, MSR's researchers and evaluated and appraised based on their publication record, so the only incentive is to publish. Microsoft's people publish a huge amount. Most university researchers are envious of how much they manage to publish, which they achieve through very high quality people, properly compensated, with lots of resources and being left alone.
Why do you "suspect" that only 1% is published? Where do you get that number from? Have you worked there? Have you collaborated with them? If they're only publishing 1%, the research would be superhuman.
You have put a false accusation to a group of people, and that pisses me off. It's not even like it's a difference of opinion - you've clearly not worked with these people or studied their publications, and are just making assumptions.
>>If they're only publishing 1%, the research would be superhuman.
Well yes, they spend over $10 billion on research. Of course it is superhuman. Perhaps you are lacking this context, which is why you find it hard to believe my suspicion that they publish a tiny percentage of all research findings.
As a matter of defense against patents, though, MSFT has a strong interest in insuring that its basic research is thoroughly documented in public, establishing prior art.
Of course transferring tech into products is part of their goal, but it's the product teams that continue from there (R passes the ball to R&D).
Regarding publications, as other pointed out in this thread, MSR does publish a huge percentage of their work.
I seriously hope you are a teenager. Because if you're an adult and you talk to people like that ... well then good luck in life man ...
Solved the meaning of life but posted it with speeling errers? We do still keep a few roadside crosses and nails laying around from old Rome; you'll get your comeuppance.
“It embodies what we believe in and our sense of values,” Rashid said. “It states, first and foremost, that our goal as an institution is to move the state of the art forward. It doesn't matter what part of the state of the art we're moving forward, and it doesn't say anything in that first part of the mission statement about Microsoft. It simply says our goal is to further research in the fields in which we work.
“The second part is equally simple: When we have really good ideas, our goal is to make sure we get them into use, that we change the world with our ideas and with our technology. We take our best ideas and push them into our products as rapidly as we possibly can. That's important.”