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.
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#.
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.