I can think of a way. First to note you can easily find all patents with Microsoft as applicant and Michael Kaplan as inventor, eg via Espacenet. So, it's pos

I can think of a way. First to note you can easily find all patents with Microsoft as applicant and Michael Kaplan as inventor, eg via Espacenet. So, it's possible the "frame" is the issue. Suppose a patent was issued without Kaplan listed as inventor, or with others listed who did not have a role. Then a frame saying "thanks to $people for their [sole] effort on this project" could become part of a lawsuit (not necessarily in USA) for the right to be named as inventor; in UK for example a significant contribution can require that an employee is reasonably compensated. That can be worth $USD millions (eg recent case 'Shanks v Unilever and others'). Based on this even just the wall the frame is on saying "significant contributions" or something might make a court case work that otherwise wouldn't. I very much doubt that's the reason, but it gives me pause that a missing detail might explain the whole thing. Kaplan wouldn't even need to be aware of it. It could also be something as simple as the company wanting an excuse to fire him, and "photos of any materials associated with patents is a firable offence" being in his contract.