Slashdot Mirror


Mitsubishi Breaks Up Famous Computer Science Lab

Andrew Koyfman writes "Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories is falling apart. Top researchers and scientists are being poached by the competitors, including BAE, Adobe, and others. The lab was responsible for much breakthrough research in the areas of computer vision, computer graphics, AI, and machine learning. They were the first group to develop the Diamond Touch table, an early precursor to Microsoft's Surface Computing. Now it looks like the famous lab will be no more, at least not in their original glory."

8 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Keep in mind by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    that a number of char. system said that the new fangled gui system was a passing fad. And then a guy from silicon valley got a free pass to see it at Xerox. Later,these guys passed it on to a small company who was doing compilers for them. From redmond. There, the small company was given ALL sorts of insider info. And what was not given, was flat out stolen. And it all became a vast step forward.
    Ms said that the table was a vast step forward. They did not say that they developed it. Just that they are going to build them.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. Evolve or die... by binaryspiral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's really no surprise here... if a lab doesn't spin off something valuable or at least has something big in the pipes that could be marketable in a a few years - cut your losses and shut them down.

    Coming up with a table computer is really not cutting edge - even before Microsoft stole the idea.

    1. Re:Evolve or die... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4

      There's really no surprise here... if a lab doesn't spin off something valuable or at least has something big in the pipes that could be marketable in a a few years - cut your losses and shut them down.

      The real problem (as I understand TFA) wasn't that the lab wasn't creating marketable product - but that the lab's director (amazingly!) believed it wasn't really his responsibility to conduct research that would lead a marketable product.
       
      And before anyone brings up Bell Labs... Don't. A great deal of mythology has grown up over the years about the basic research performed there. The fact that the majority of the basic research was intended as a prelude to applied research and eventually technology or products that Ma Bell could use or sell has been obscured by this mythology.
  3. Many MERL projects have appeared on Slashdot by dlleigh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Including this.
    And this and this.
    And this.

  4. Trusting Corporations for Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article is a CLASSIC example of why we need academic institutions and government funded research into the great unknown.

    A significant number of these types of labs, doing pioneering work under the name of a parent company, have been gutted with the intent of making them more "product focused" with the intent of converting brain power straight into $$$.

    Well, here's a news flash - that's not how real research (as opposed to product development) works. With research into new stuff, you DON'T KNOW what you will find or what it will be worth. NO ONE does, BY DEFINITION.

    A corporation can only do this type of work when a) they have a decades long focus and b) have sufficient profit margins to soak up the cost of research without immediate returns. That's a rare situation, and it's becoming rarer in a more competitive world economy.

    Rather than bemoan this behavior (after all, money making is at the heart of commerce) we should be funding basic research at universities at much higher levels. Funding at universities has gotten tough enough that they will undertake a wide variety of investigations for commercial companies just to pay the bills. This makes them de-facto corporate research labs, and takes away time from their exploration into the unknown. Grad students become extremely cheap labor for companies, just indirectly.

    Right now, it won't matter commercially. Product cycles don't get impacted by long term research for years or decades, so for a while we won't see this problem. But it's going to hurt us in the end. As products stagnate, foreign plants will catch up and learn how to produce at higher quality. They will begin to match or even exceed the performance of existing outputs domestically, and we will not be able to compete because there will be nothing in the long term pipeline that might convince people to stay with us.

    Pure Research HAS A POINT. Even if the profound social and philosophical questions surrounding the pursuit of knowledge for its own stake don't register, it can also be viewed as a long term investment in our future. Balance sheets and profit statements do not define the whole of human existence, nor do the look far enough ahead to see long term consequences.

    Again, it is unrealistic to expect this of businesses - that is not how the system is encouraged to behave. However, the government SHOULD be thinking about these issues. They need to be funding a LOT of basic research into all manner of alternative energy science, and the more basic science behind it - and thats actually a more practically centered goal. Truly BASIC research into the unknown, with no end game in mind, seems to be a tough sell nowadays.

    Corporate research works ONLY when the long term is viewed as Very Important. It's dangerous to trust to that in an uncertain amd extremely competitive market.

    1. Re:Trusting Corporations for Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There have always been really interesting pure research labs in the corporate world, and plenty of that work belongs in the corporate world. It is true that eventually they get shut down because some narrow-minded bureaucrat takes over or because financial hardships follow, however there are always new labs popping up (or revived). This is all part of the process, most corporate researchers know this and have come to accept it.

      Pure research is not only academia's burden (at least in CS). Young faculty care about getting tenure, so they don't do a lot of research with a long term vision. This is something they get to do after they get tenure (when they are often past their prime, burned-out and effectively retire). Also, reputable CS depts will not risk hiring a quirky new person but instead try to get the student of a well-known professor in an established field. This results into placing some really exciting researchers in the corporate world where they do just fine because labs like MERL have (or had) a 10-20 year horizon. Given the long horizon and the fact that corporate researchers don't have to constantly look for funding, take care of students, teach, participate in career-building meetings, etc; corporate labs can provide an excellent place for basic research.

  5. Re:All of your examples show why they were shut do by PsychosisC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sure that Mitsubishi Bank, Mitsubishi Agricultural Machinery, Mitsubishi Estate Co., Mitsubishi Plastics, Mitsubishi Electric, &ct. would disagree with your "Core Competencies" analysis. The core product in the Mitsubishi brand is not cars or electronics. Their core product has always been venture research. Be the first and best in new fields. If anything, I am surprised they don't have a Mitsubishi Pharmaceutical yet.

  6. Re:Only Monopolies can Afford Pure Research by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a decent economic argument to made that it is in society's best interest to use public monies to fund pure research, and then allow the fruits of such research to be released into the public domain for any entrepreneurs to take it to a usable form. It spreads the large and long-term financial risks of such research over the entire society, but lets capitalistic forces figure out the most efficient way to make practical uses of the research available to the society.