4 ms·

Well its founder did leave Microsoft specifically to found a company that does nothing but patent trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures h

Well its founder did leave Microsoft specifically to found a company that does nothing but patent trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures). Given the number of actual products that have come out of Microsoft Research (One the last time I counted) I'd say patenting things is its primary goal at this point

marcf 15y ago
I'm sure that wasn't the original intent. But given that they have failed generally at commercializing their innovations, patent lawsuits are a good backup strategy and probably gives Microsoft's patent lawyers a good justification for their continued existance.
eropple 15y ago
Plenty of MSR stuff has ended up in the hands of other groups and ended up in shipped projects. Just look at Wikipedia: their C# research (Polyphonic C# became Cw became Joins Concurrency), F#, Seadragon, Accelerator (pretty cool, BTW), freaking ClearType... the list isn't exactly short. Surface aside, they haven't produced commercialized products, but that's not the point. Come on. This stuff is easy. Why the content-free troll?
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  F# is probably your only valid point though I'm not sure I'd call yet another functional programming language an innovation. Seadragon is Zooming technology that is, at best, a decent demo at this point (and probably designed to be patented). For people who don't know what we're talking about: http://zoom.it http://zoom.it Accelerator I'd never even heard of which is probably because it was introduced in 2006 and no finished product has ever come of it. Cleartype came out of the Microsoft e-books team which wasn't part of Microsoft Research to the best of my knowledge So giving you F# that makes two products: Surface and F# for $9 billion dollars per year. So either your argument is those two products cost the majority of that money to maintain or I go back to my original point. Microsoft Research's primary function at the company is to patent things
  - webjprgm 15y ago
    Their work is used in the academic community. E.g. they have a suite for examining/debugging concurrency called CHESS which was used in a class I took in grad school and is related to and referenced by some of the research my (former) academic advisor professor does, which work is used by NASA to improve space program software.
    - BananaRepublic 15y ago
      Yes, and like their other MS Research projects it's licenced under the 'Microsoft Research Licence' which means that whatever modifications/enhancements you do to the code can only be used within this academic setting. HOWEVER, Microsoft themselves can use your modifications for whatever purposes they want, like sell them. Sweet deal...
      - kelnos 15y ago
        As with any other software license (including the GPL), if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        Isn't it a bit misleading to put the MRL and the GPL in the same league? I agree with the "If you don't like the license, don't use the software" attitude, but the terms of the MRL are quite restrictive.
  - DaveMebs 15y ago
    There are going to be plenty of things that come out of MS Research that people don't realize came from there (examples: PhotoSynth, Kinect). Expecting an exhaustive list is unrealistic. Furthermore, MS Research was founded over a decade ago when patent trolling was not as big a deal. It's pretty clear if you read about it that Bill Gates wanted to create the successor to the great post-war corporate research groups (ex: Bell Labs). I find the idea that Gates would really aspire to create a patent troll when there are much more exciting things to do with 1000 phds. (Disclaimer: I work for MSFT, but now MS Research)
- marshray 15y ago
  ClearType is "freaking" ancient http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm

marcf 15y ago

I'm sure that wasn't the original intent. But given that they have failed generally at commercializing their innovations, patent lawsuits are a good backup strategy and probably gives Microsoft's patent lawyers a good justification for their continued existance.

eropple 15y ago

Plenty of MSR stuff has ended up in the hands of other groups and ended up in shipped projects. Just look at Wikipedia: their C# research (Polyphonic C# became Cw became Joins Concurrency), F#, Seadragon, Accelerator (pretty cool, BTW), freaking ClearType... the list isn't exactly short. Surface aside, they haven't produced commercialized products, but that's not the point. Come on. This stuff is easy. Why the content-free troll?

TomOfTTB 15y ago
F# is probably your only valid point though I'm not sure I'd call yet another functional programming language an innovation. Seadragon is Zooming technology that is, at best, a decent demo at this point (and probably designed to be patented). For people who don't know what we're talking about: http://zoom.it http://zoom.it Accelerator I'd never even heard of which is probably because it was introduced in 2006 and no finished product has ever come of it. Cleartype came out of the Microsoft e-books team which wasn't part of Microsoft Research to the best of my knowledge So giving you F# that makes two products: Surface and F# for $9 billion dollars per year. So either your argument is those two products cost the majority of that money to maintain or I go back to my original point. Microsoft Research's primary function at the company is to patent things
- webjprgm 15y ago
  Their work is used in the academic community. E.g. they have a suite for examining/debugging concurrency called CHESS which was used in a class I took in grad school and is related to and referenced by some of the research my (former) academic advisor professor does, which work is used by NASA to improve space program software.
  - BananaRepublic 15y ago
    Yes, and like their other MS Research projects it's licenced under the 'Microsoft Research Licence' which means that whatever modifications/enhancements you do to the code can only be used within this academic setting. HOWEVER, Microsoft themselves can use your modifications for whatever purposes they want, like sell them. Sweet deal...
    - kelnos 15y ago
      As with any other software license (including the GPL), if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        Isn't it a bit misleading to put the MRL and the GPL in the same league? I agree with the "If you don't like the license, don't use the software" attitude, but the terms of the MRL are quite restrictive.
- DaveMebs 15y ago
  There are going to be plenty of things that come out of MS Research that people don't realize came from there (examples: PhotoSynth, Kinect). Expecting an exhaustive list is unrealistic. Furthermore, MS Research was founded over a decade ago when patent trolling was not as big a deal. It's pretty clear if you read about it that Bill Gates wanted to create the successor to the great post-war corporate research groups (ex: Bell Labs). I find the idea that Gates would really aspire to create a patent troll when there are much more exciting things to do with 1000 phds. (Disclaimer: I work for MSFT, but now MS Research)
marshray 15y ago
ClearType is "freaking" ancient http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm