My problem with what you've said is that you've accused Microsoft of placing patents on their research, and of not publishing their results.
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.
I went to UW for my undergrad. I know people who work in MSR and talk to them on a regular basis. You're definitely right about them being high quality people and being very properly compensated, but wrong about everything else you said. Language research, for example, constitutes a tiny minority of MSR's total budget. Most of it goes to graphics and multimedia, hardware and devices, and human-computer interaction, with smaller portions going to software development and security/anti-piracy research. Everything else is breadcrumbs.
>>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.
When I look through MSR's papers, I see a pretty massive level of output, across many of the domains you say get most of the money. Of course there's going to be information that isn't published. There's lots of information not worth publishing.
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.
MSR does in fact file quite a few patent applications. At least in the past, Microsoft employees got little tchotchkes for each patent application filed, and it's not uncommon for MSR researchers to have small mounds of these patent 'cubes' on their bookshelves.
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.