Editing Halloween documents (section)

===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.<ref name="document1"/><ref name="document2"/>

Document I revealed that "FUD" (spreading [[fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]) was a traditional Microsoft marketing strategy, acknowledged and understood internally.<ref name="nytimes" /> Examples of Microsoft's FUD tactics are [[Vaporware|announcing nonexistent products]] or spreading rumors that competing products will crash Windows.<ref name="salon"/> 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 [[webserver|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]]''.<ref name="gotthefact"/>