Generics were only added to .NET 2.0 because MSR got it implemented. Redmond would never have done it alone, and called it academic, theoretic feature. They may have ended up with a lameass implementation of generics, ala Java.

Here's a history by Don Syme, who was one of the main people on this project:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/03/15/net-c-gener...

Quotes:

  "But I do want to say one thing straight: Generics for .NET and C# in their current form almost didn't happen: it was a very close call, and the feature almost didn't make the cut for Whidbey (Visual Studio 2005)"
  
  "being told by product team members that "generics is for academics only""
  
  "It was only through the total dedication of Microsoft Research, Cambridge during 1998-2004, to doing a complete, high quality implementation in both the CLR [...] and the C# compiler, that the project proceeded."

Microsoft's C# track record shows MC Corp's commitment to higher-level programming pretty well, IMO. LINQ got added just to hit the "LINQ" target (and Erik Meijer mighta been a big force there). But even then: the C# 3.0 were only implemented to hit LINQ, not added as general language features. One big example: declaration type inference is half-assed and only exists to facilitate anonymous types. They've had years since to clean up the design and haven't shown any indication of doing so.

(I still think C#'s the best out of the "mainstream" languages, but they could be doing a whole ton better.)

I know those papers, like any one that cares about compiler design should know.

As for MSR vs MS Corp, as you put it.

It is called Microsoft Systems Research, it is still a Microsoft unit, with researchers on Microsoft's payroll.

So it is plain and simple, Microsoft.