What were the "Halloween Documents"
The Halloween documents are a series of secret Microsoft memos from the late 1990s. They came to light because they were leaked by a Microsoft employee and published by open source advocate Eric S. Raymond - many of them around October 31, hence the name.
The documents show: Microsoft saw Linux and open source software as a serious threat and developed strategies to slow their success - despite public statements to the contrary.
| No. | Name | Author | Date | Brief description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology" | Microsoft / Vinod Valloppillil | August 1998 | A leaked internal report |
| II | "Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?" | Microsoft / Vinod Valloppillil | August 1998 | A leaked internal report |
| III | Untitled statement | Microsoft / Aurelia van den Berg | November 1998 | Press statement from Microsoft Netherlands |
| IV | "When Software Things Were Rotten" | Eric S. Raymond | December 1998 | A satire piece based on Microsoft's Ed Muth comparing open source developers to Robin Hood. |
| V | "The FUD Begins" | Eric S. Raymond | March 1999 | A response by Raymond to Ed Muth's allegations that Linux has a "weak value proposition". |
| VI | "The Fatal Anniversary" | Eric S. Raymond | October 1999 | A response by Raymond to studies authored by the Gartner group for Microsoft. |
| VII | "Research E-Bulletin: Attitudes Towards Shared Source and Open Source Research Study" | Microsoft | September 2002 | A summary of the results of a Microsoft survey describing reactions to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative. |
| VIII | "OSS and Government" | Microsoft / Orlando Ayala | November 2002 | Describes Microsoft's procedures for responding to notable conversions away from Microsoft software |
| IX | "It Ain't Necessarily SCO" | Eric S. Raymond and Rob Landley | August 2003 | A response to the allegations made by the SCO Group in its initial filings in SCO v. IBM. |
| X | "Follow The Money" | Mike Anderer | March 2004 | An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to SCO's Chris Sontag revealing Microsoft's channeling of $86 million (equivalent to $140 million in 2024) to SCO. |
| XI | "Get The FUD" | Eric S. Raymond | June 2004 | A response to Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign |
Documents I and II
These are leaked reports for Microsoft's own use, both written by Vinod Valloppillil, a program manager at Microsoft.
Document I provides a detailed introduction to the concepts behind open source software and its possible impact on Microsoft products and services. It outlines the strengths and weaknesses of open source software. Document II describes the basic architecture of the Linux system, and its relation to Unix and Windows NT.
Document I revealed that "FUD" (spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt) was a traditional Microsoft marketing strategy, acknowledged and understood internally. Examples of Microsoft's FUD tactics are announcing nonexistent products or spreading rumors that competing products will crash Windows. Raymond suggests that the documents show that while Microsoft may have been dismissive of open source software in public, it privately considers it a serious competitor.
In discussing ways of competing with open source, Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects had been able to enter the server market is the market's use of standardized protocols. The document then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and developing new protocols" and "de-commoditiz[ing] protocols & applications". This policy has been internally nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish". Document I also suggests that open source software "is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it", and "Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects."
Documents I and II were filed as evidence on January 16, 2007, in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.