Fear, uncertainty, and doubt

Short description: Tactic used to influence opinion

"FUD" and "FUDD" redirect here. For other uses, see Fud and Fudd (disambiguation).

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a manipulative propaganda tactic used in technology sales, marketing, public relations, politics, polling, and cults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

In public policy, a similar concept has been referred to as manufactured uncertainty, which involves casting doubt on academic findings, exaggerating their claimed imperfections.[1] A manufactured controversy is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute.[2][3]

## Contents

* 1 Etymology
* 2 Examples
* 2.1 Public policy
* 2.1.1 Tobacco industry
* 2.1.2 Legal effects
* 2.2 Software producers
* 2.2.1 Microsoft
* 2.2.2 SCO v. IBM
* 2.2.3 Apple
* 2.3 Security industry
* 2.4 Caltex
* 2.5 Clorox
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
* 6 External links

## Etymology

The similar formulation "doubts, fears, and uncertainties" first appeared in 1693.[4][5] The phrase "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" first appeared in the 1920s.[6][7] It is also sometimes rendered as "fear, uncertainty, and disinformation".[8]

By 1975, "FUD" was appearing in contexts of marketing, sales,[9] and in public relations:[10]

> One of the messages dealt with is FUD—the fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of customer and sales person alike that stifles the approach and greeting.[9]

FUD was first used with its common current technology-related meaning by Gene Amdahl in 1975, after he left IBM to found Amdahl Corp.[11]

> FUD is the fear, uncertainty and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products.[11]

This usage of FUD to describe disinformation in the computer hardware industry is said to have led to subsequent popularization of the term.[12]

As Eric S. Raymond wrote:[11]

> The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991, the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.[11]

By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well-known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its own, regardless of the relative technical merits. This is a recognized phenomenon, epitomized by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment". The aim is to have IT departments buy software they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.[citation needed]

## Examples

### Public policy

Manufacturing controversy has been a tactic used by ideological and corporate groups to "neutralize the influence of academic scientists" in public policy debates. Cherry picking of favorable data and sympathetic experts, aggrandizement of uncertainties within theoretical models, and false balance in media reporting contribute to the generation of FUD. Alan D. Attie describes its process as "to amplify uncertainties, cherry-pick experts, attack individual scientists, marginalize the traditional role of distinguished scientific bodies and get the media to report "both sides" of a manufactured controversy."[13]

Those manufacturing uncertainty may label academic research as "junk science" and use a variety of tactics designed to stall and increase the expense of the distribution of sound scientific information.[1][14] Delay tactics are also used to slow the implementation of regulations and public warnings in response to previously undiscovered health risks (e.g., the increased risk of Reye's syndrome in children who take aspirin).[14] Chief among these stalling tactics is generating scientific uncertainty, "no matter how powerful or conclusive the evidence",[14] to prevent regulation.

Another tactic used to manufacture controversy is to cast the scientific community as intolerant of dissent and conspiratorially aligned with industries or sociopolitical movements that quash challenges to conventional wisdom.[15] This form of manufactured controversy has been used by environmentalist advocacy groups, religious challengers of the theory of evolution, and opponents of global warming legislation.[16]

Ideas that have been labeled as manufactured uncertainty include:

* Denial of the depletion of the ozone layer[13]
* Climate change denial[3]
* Contesting the development of skin cancer from exposure to ultraviolet radiation via sunlight and tanning lamps[14]
* Denial of the Armenian genocide by the government of Turkey[17][18]
* Rwandan genocide denial[19]
* Vaccination controversies, particularly those alleging a causative relationship between the MMR vaccine or thiomersal in the development of autism spectrum disorders.[20]
* AIDS denialism[3]
* "Teach the Controversy" efforts of intelligent design supporters[3]
* Denial of the carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium[21]

#### Tobacco industry

This section is an excerpt from Tobacco industry playbook[ edit ]

#### Legal effects

In the United States, the generation of manufactured uncertainty about scientific data has affected political and legal proceedings in many different areas. The Data Quality Act and the Supreme Court's Daubert standard have been cited as tools used by those manufacturing controversy to obfuscate scientific consensus.[1][13]

Concerns have been raised regarding the conflicts of interest inherent in many types of industry regulation. For example, many industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, are a major source of funding for the research necessary to achieve government regulatory approval for their product.[22] In developing regulations, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency rely heavily on unpublished studies from industry sources that have not been peer reviewed.[21] This can allow a given industry control over the extent of available research, and the pace at which it is reviewable, when challenging scientific research that may threaten their business interests.[citation needed]

### Software producers

#### Microsoft

In the 1990s, the term became most often associated with Microsoft. Roger Irwin said:[23]

> Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the '80s used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ing IBM themselves during the OS/2 vs Win3.1 years.

In 1996, Caldera, Inc. accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practices, including issuing vaporware announcements, creating FUD, and excluding competitors from participating in beta-test programs to destroy competition in the DOS market.[24][25]

In 1991, Microsoft released a beta version of Windows 3.1 whose AARD code would display a vaguely unnerving error message when the user ran it on the DR DOS 6.0 operating system instead of Microsoft-written OSs:[24][26][27][28][29]

> Non-Fatal error detected: error #2726
> Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support
> Press ENTER to exit or C to continue[27][28][29]

If the user chose to press , Windows would continue to run on DR DOS without problems. Speculation that this code was meant to create doubts about DR DOS's compatibility and thereby destroy the product's reputation[27][28] was confirmed years later by internal Microsoft memos published as part of the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case.[30] At one point, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates sent a memo to a number of employees, reading

> You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MS-DOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there [a] feature they have that might get in our way?[24][31]

Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating

> What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.[24][31]

In 2000, Microsoft settled the lawsuit out-of-court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be $280 million.[32][33][34][35]

At around the same time, the leaked internal Microsoft "Halloween documents" stated "OSS [Open Source Software] is long-term credible… [therefore] FUD tactics cannot be used to combat it."[36] Open source software, and the Linux community in particular, are widely perceived as frequent targets of Microsoft's FUD:

* Statements about the "viral nature"[37] of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
* Statements that "…FOSS [Free and open source software] infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents", before software patent law precedents were even established.[38][39]
* Statements that Windows Server 2003 has lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than Linux, in Microsoft's "Get-The-Facts" campaign. It turned out that they were comparing Linux on a very expensive IBM mainframe to Windows Server 2003 on an Intel Xeon-based server.[40][41]
* A 2010 video claimed that OpenOffice.org had a higher long-term cost of ownership, as well as poor interoperability with Microsoft's own office suite. The video featured statements such as "If an open source freeware solution breaks, who's gonna fix it?"[42][43]

#### SCO v. IBM

The SCO Group's 2003 lawsuit against IBM, funded by Microsoft, claiming $5 billion in intellectual property infringements by the free software community, is an example of FUD, according to IBM, which argued in its counterclaim that SCO was spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".[44]

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells wrote (and Judge Dale Albert Kimball concurred) in her order limiting SCO's claims: "The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM, 'sorry, we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know...' SCO was required to disclose in detail what it feels IBM misappropriated... the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is... not placing all the details on the table. Certainly if an individual were stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole, I'm not telling.' Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say 'it's in there somewhere, you figure it out.'"[45]

Regarding the matter, Darl Charles McBride, President and CEO of SCO, made the following statements:

1. "IBM has taken our valuable trade secrets and given them away to Linux,"
2. "We're finding... cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code"
3. "...unless more companies start licensing SCO's property... [SCO] may also sue Linus Torvalds... for patent infringement."
4. "Both companies [IBM and Red Hat] have shifted liability to the customer and then taunted us to sue them."
5. "We have the ability to go to users with lawsuits and we will if we have to, 'It would be within SCO Group's rights to order every copy of AIX [IBM's proprietary UNIX] destroyed'"
6. "As of Friday, [13] June [2003], we will be done trying to talk to IBM, and we will be talking directly to its customers and going in and auditing them. IBM no longer has the authority to sell or distribute IBM AIX and customers no longer have the right to use AIX software"
7. "If you just drag this out in a typical litigation path, where it takes years and years to settle anything, and in the meantime you have all this uncertainty clouding over the market..."
8. "Users are running systems that have basically pirated software inside, or stolen software inside of their systems, they have liability."[46]

SCO stock skyrocketed from under US$3 a share to over US$20 in a matter of weeks in 2003. It later dropped to around[47] US$1.2—then crashed to under 50 cents on 13 August 2007, in the aftermath of a ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights.[48]

#### Apple

Apple's claim that iPhone jailbreaking could potentially allow hackers to crash cell phone towers was described by Fred von Lohmann, a representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as a "kind of theoretical threat...more FUD than truth".[49]

### Security industry

Main article: Social:Appeal to fear

The drawback to the FUD tactic in this context is that, when the stated or implied threats fail to materialize over time, the customer or decision-maker frequently reacts by withdrawing budgeting or support from future security initiatives.[50]

FUD has also been utilized in technical support scams, which may use fake error messages to scare unwitting computer users, especially the elderly or computer-illiterate, into paying for a supposed fix for a non-existent problem,[51] to avoid being framed for criminal charges such as unpaid taxes, or in extreme cases, false accusations of illegal acts such as child pornography.[52]

### Caltex

The FUD tactic was used by Caltex Australia in 2003. According to an internal memo, which was subsequently leaked, they wished to use FUD to destabilize franchisee confidence, and thus get a better deal for Caltex. This memo was used as an example of unconscionable behaviour in a Senate inquiry. Senior management claimed that it was contrary to and did not reflect company principles.[53][54][55]

### Clorox

In 2008, Clorox was the subject of both consumer and industry criticism for advertising its Green Works line of allegedly environmentally friendly cleaning products using the slogan, "Finally, Green Works."[56] The slogan implied both that "green" products manufactured by other companies which had been available to consumers prior to the introduction of Clorox's GreenWorks line had all been ineffective, and also that the new GreenWorks line was at least as effective as Clorox's existing product lines. The intention of this slogan and the associated advertising campaign has been interpreted as appealing to consumers' fears that products from companies with less brand recognition are less trustworthy or effective. Critics also pointed out that, despite its representation of GreenWorks products as "green" in the sense of being less harmful to the environment and/or consumers using them, the products contain a number of ingredients advocates of natural products have long campaigned against the use of in household products due to toxicity to humans or their environment.[57] All three implicit claims have been disputed, and some of their elements disproven, by environmental groups, consumer-protection groups, and the industry self-regulatory Better Business Bureau.[58]

## See also

* Agnotology - Study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt
* Social:Culture of fear - Arrangement in which fear of retribution is pervasive
* Unsolved:Denial and deception - Framework in military intelligence theory
* Social:Discrediting tactic
* Doubt Is Their Product - 2008 book by David Michaels (book)
* Philosophy:Dunning–Kruger effect - Cognitive bias about one's own skill
* Embrace, extend, and extinguish - Anti-competitive business strategy (EEE)
* Social:False flag - Covert operation designed to deceive
* Social:Fearmongering
* Fnord - Neologism coined in 1965
* Iago – Character in Othello
* Merchants of Doubt - 2010 book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (book)
* Philosophy:Moral panic - Fear that some evil threatens society
* Obscurantism
* Social:Perception management - Influence tactic
* Social:Propaganda - Form of communication intended to sway the audience through presenting only one side of the argument
* Rational ignorance - Practice of avoiding research whose cost exceeds its benefits
* Scareware
* Social:Swiftboating
* Engineering:Tin foil hat - Hat and stereotype for conspiracy theorists
* Vaporware
* Social:Whataboutism - Formal fallacy

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Michaels D (2005). "Scientific evidence and public policy". Am J Public Health 95 (Suppl 1): S5–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.065599. PMID 16030339.
2. ↑ Manufactroversy : "A contrived or non-existent controversy, manufactured by political ideologues or interest groups who use deception and specious arguments to make their case", Paul McFedries, Wordspy.com, December 16, 2009
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Ceccarelli, Leah (April 11, 2008). "Manufactroversy: The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed". Center for American Progress. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/.
4. ↑ "Chapter VII. The Conclusion.". written at London, England. A Practical Discourse of Repentance, Rectifying the Mistakes about it, especially such as lead either to Despair or Presumption. Perswading and Directing to the True Practice of it, and Demonstrating the Invalidity of a Death-Bed Repentance. (2nd ed.). The Princes Arms, St. Pauls Church Yard: Samuel Smith; Benjamin Walford. 1695. p. 557. OCLC 51617518. https://books.google.com/books?id=YhstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA553. Retrieved 2019-06-02. "[…] This will give unspeakable comfort peace and satisfaction to his Mind, and set him not only out of danger and free him from an ill state, but out of all doubts fears and uncertainties in his thoughts about it; […]"
5. ↑ "Chapter VII. The Conclusion.". written at London, England. A Practical Discourse of Repentance, Rectifying the Mistakes about it, especially such as lead either to Despair or Presumption. Perswading and Directing to the True Practice of it, and Demonstrating the Invalidity of a Death-Bed Repentance. (corrected and reset 2nd ed.). The Sun and Moon (near the Royal Exchange), Cornhill; the Ship, St. Paul's Church-Yard: Richard Burrough and John Baker; William Taylor. 1708. p. 406. OCLC 1086876590. https://books.google.com/books?id=nL0HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA403. Retrieved 2019-06-02. "[…] This will give unspeakable comfort peace and satisfaction to his Mind, and set him not only out of danger, and free him from an ill state, but out of all doubts fears and uncertainties in his thoughts about it; […]"
6. ↑ "Chapter: Letters from Association Answering Objections - Laymen's Repies to Criticism with the Author's Comments - Association Not Formed for Evangelical Purposes". The Roman Catholic Church Challenged in the Discussion of Thirty-two Questions with the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia. Macon, Georgia, USA: The Patriotic Societies of Macon. 1920-05-22. p. 75. Cl. A570137. ark:/13960/t26982v0c. OCLC 1084527008. https://archive.org/details/romancatholicchu00yarb. "[…] Suspicion has no place in our interchanges; it is a shield for ignorance, a sign of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. […]" [1] [2] (NB. In there, Yarbrough is citing a 1917-09-21 letter by J. J. Farrell, Augusta, Georgia, USA, which contains the quotation.)
7. ↑ Dent, Joseph Malaby, ed (1926). The Patriot Novelist of Poland, Henryk Sienkiewicz. London, England: E. P. Dutton & Co.. p. 71. "[…] Again he was caught in a tempest of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. […]" (See also: Henryk Sienkiewicz)
8. ↑ Netlingo. Ojai: NetLingo. 2002. p. 179. ISBN 0-9706396-7-8. https://archive.org/details/00book881123420/page/179.
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 "The search for self". Clothes (New York, NY, USA: PRADS, Inc.) 10 (14–24): 19. 1975-10-01. https://books.google.com/books?id=B8XxAAAAMAAJ&q="One+of+the+messages+dealt+with+is+FUD—the+fear,+uncertainty+and+doubt+on+the+part+of+customer+and+sales+person+alike+that+stifles+the+approach+and+greeting.". Retrieved 2011-06-10. "[…] One of the messages dealt with is FUD—the fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of customer and sales person alike that stifles the approach and greeting. […]".
10. ↑ The Complete Sales Letter Book. Armonk: Sharpe Professional. 1998. ISBN 0-7656-0083-8. https://archive.org/details/completesaleslet00harr.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Raymond, Eric Steven, ed (2003-12-29). "FUD". The Jargon File. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html.
12. ↑ School Mobbing and Emotional Abuse. Philadelphia, USA: Brunner–Routledge. 2003. ISBN 0-415-94551-8. https://archive.org/details/schoolmobbingemo0000elli. (NB. For example, FUD has been used to describe social dynamics in contexts where sales, lobbying or commercial promotion is not involved.)
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Attie, A. D. (2006). "The Republican war on science". Journal of Clinical Investigation 116 (3): 552. doi:10.1172/JCI28068.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 "Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment". Am J Public Health 95 (Suppl 1): S39–48. 2005. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059. PMID 16030337.
15. ↑ "The Paranoid Style in American Science: 3. Contrary Imaginations", Daniel Engber, Slate, April 17, 2008
16. ↑ "The Paranoid Style in American Science: 2. An Uncertain Truth", Daniel Engber, Slate, April 16, 2008
17. ↑ Holthouse, David (Summer 2008). State of Denial Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide. Intelligence Report. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/summer/state-of-denial#.
18. ↑ Mamigonian, Marc A. (2015). "Academic Denial of the Armenian Genocide in American Scholarship: Denialism as Manufactured Controversy". Genocide Studies International 9 (1): 61–82. doi:10.3138/gsi.9.1.04.
19. ↑ (in en) Manufacturing Controversy : Left-Wing Denial of the Rwandan Genocide. Routledge. August 13, 2023. doi:10.4324/9781351295000-5. ISBN 978-1-351-29500-0. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/manufacturing-controversy-gerald-caplan/e/10.4324/9781351295000-5.
20. ↑ Hall, Harriet (June 3, 2009). "Vaccines & Autism: A Deadly Manufactroversy". Skeptic Magazine 15 (2). http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-06-03/.
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 "Selected science: an industry campaign to undermine an OSHA hexavalent chromium standard". Environ Health 5 (1): 5. 2006. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-5-5. PMID 16504102. Bibcode: 2006EnvHe...5....5M.
22. ↑ Camargo KR (December 2009). "Public health and the knowledge industry". Rev Saude Publica 43 (6): 1078–283. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102009005000076. PMID 20027493. http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102009005000076&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en. Retrieved 2025-05-10.
23. ↑ "What is FUD?". 1998. http://www.cavcomp.demon.co.uk/halloween/fuddef.html.
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 "In the United States District Court - District of Utah, Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Consolidated statement of facts in support of its responses to motions for summary judgement by Microsoft Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B". Caldera, Inc.. April 1999. http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factstat.html.
25. ↑ "In the United States District Court - District of Utah, Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B - Caldera, Inc.'s Memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for partial Summary Judgment on plaintiff's "Technological Tying" claim". Caldera, Inc.. May 1999. http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/tech.html.
26. ↑ "Caldera submits evidence to counter Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment". Caldera, Inc.. 1999-04-28. http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factrel.html.
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 "Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code - A serious message--and the code that produced it". Dr. Dobb's Journal (Miller Freeman, Inc.) 18 (9): 42, 44–48, 89. September 1993. #204. http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm. Retrieved 2013-10-05.
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Undocumented DOS: A programmer's guide to reserved MS-DOS functions and data structures - expanded to include MS-DOS 6, Novell DOS and Windows 3.1 (2 ed.). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. 1994. p. 11. ISBN 0-201-63287-X. https://archive.org/details/undocumenteddosp00andr_0/page/11. (xviii+856+vi pages, 3.5-inch floppy) Errata: [3] [4]
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 "msdos detection - hot job for you". 1993-02-24. http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01133.pdf. (NB. This court document is a copy of a mail by Aaron Reynolds written in 1991 and forwarded by one of its recipients, Phil Barrett, in 1993.)
30. ↑ "How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS - Real bear-traps, and spurious errors". The Register. 1999-11-05. https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/.
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 "Microsoft emails focus on DR-DOS threat". CNET News. 1999-04-28. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-225129.html.
32. ↑ "Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case". Groklaw. 2009-11-23. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091120165256836.
33. ↑ "Settlement agreement - Microsoft Corporation and Caldera, Inc. reach agreement to settle antitrust lawsuit". 2000-01-07. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-8.pdf. "[…] Microsoft will pay to Caldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or potential claims covered by this agreement […]" (NB. This document of the Caldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the later Comes v. Microsoft case.)
34. ↑ "Microsoft's memorandum in opposition to Novell's renewed motion for summary judgement on Microsoft's affirmative defenses and in support of Microsoft's cross-motion for summary judgement". United States District Court, District of Maryland. 2009-11-13. p. 16. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-2.pdf. "[…] Microsoft paid $280 million to Caldera to settle the case […]"
35. ↑ "Microsoft Will Pay $275 Million To Settle Lawsuit From Caldera". The Wall Street Journal. 2000-01-11. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB947543007415899052. "Microsoft Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit by Caldera Inc., heading off a trial that was likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. […] Microsoft and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement. Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31 […] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding […]"
36. ↑ Open Source Initiative. "Halloween I: Open Source Software (New?) Development Methodology "
37. ↑ Press release from Microsoft which has viral nature of open-source quote
38. ↑ "Microsoft takes on the free world". Fortune. 2007-05-14. https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/.
39. ↑ "Legal Pad, MSFT: Linux, free software, infringe 235 of our patents". http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/. (NB. Microsoft's licensing chief claimed that specific examples have been given in private.)
40. ↑ "Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading'". BBC News. 2004-08-26. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3600724.stm.
41. ↑ "Linux 10 times more expensive? Get the facts, watchdog tells Microsoft". CNet. 2004-08-26. http://news.cnet.com/Ad+watchdog+warns+Microsoft+to+'Get+the+Facts'/2100-1016_3-5323672.html.
42. ↑ "Microsoft posts video of customers criticizing OpenOffice". Ars Technica. 2010. https://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-posts-video-of-customers-criticizing-openoffice.ars.
43. ↑ "Considering OpenOffice? Consider this …". Microsoft. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoZv6Gb_mYo.
44. ↑ The SCO Group v IBM – answer to amended complaint and counterclaims[Usurped!] (Undecided, U.S. District Court – Utah, Kimball J., filed 2004-08-06) Section E, paragraph 22, groklaw.net
45. ↑ The SCO Group v IBM – ORDER GRANTING IN PART IBM'S MOTION TO LIMIT SCO's CLAIMS[Usurped!] (Undecided, U.S. District Court – Utah, Kimball J., filed 2004-08-06) Section IV, paragraphs 33,34
46. ↑ "Show Person". http://www.groklaw.net/quotes/showperson.phtml?pid=1.
47. ↑ "SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO GRP INC (THE)". Yahoo! Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=SCOX&a=03&b=21&c=2002&d=11&e=01&f=2006&g=m.
48. ↑ "Investors bailing on SCO stock, SCOX plummets". arstechnica. 13 August 2007. https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070813-investors-bailing-on-sco-stock-scox-plummets.html.
49. ↑ "iPhone Jailbreaking Could Crash Cellphone Towers, Apple Claims". Wired. 2009-07-28. https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/jailbreak/. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
50. ↑ "The FUD Factor". csoonline.com. CXO Media, Inc., a subsidiary of IDG Enterprise. 2003-04-01. http://www.csoonline.com/article/217983/The_FUD_Factor.
51. ↑ "Beware of tech support scams". UNC Health and UNC School of Medicine. http://news.unchealthcare.org/empnews/2017/july-6/beware-of-tech-support-scams.
52. ↑ "Spying on the Scammers". Panorama. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fzx2.
53. ↑ "New deal helps to heal Caltex wounds". EnergyNewsPremium. 2004-04-28. http://www.energynewspremium.net/storyview.asp?storyid=24662&sectionsource=s0.
54. ↑ "Caltex 'bully' memo breached policy". ABC. 2004-04-23. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-04-23/caltex-bully-memo-breached-policy/174892.
55. ↑ "Caltex in court over Woolies deal". Sydney Morning Herald. 2004-01-04. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/03/1072908952947.html.
56. ↑ "Clorox introduces green line of cleaning products". SFGate. 2008-01-14. https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/2008-01-14/news/17149716_1_natural-cleaning-cleaning-products-green-works/3.
57. ↑ "4 'green' claims to be wary of". MSN. 2009-04-22. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/4-green-claims-to-be-wary-of.aspx.
58. ↑ "NAD Tells Clorox to Clean Up Ads". Environmental Leader. 2008-08-17. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/08/17/nad-tells-clorox-to-clean-up-ads/.

## Further reading

* "Don't let FUD kill your business goals". Red Hat. 2000-04-19. http://opensource.com/business/10/3/dont-let-fud-kill-your-business-goals.
* "Microsoft: Mit Patenten gegen Open Source" (in de). Pro-Linux (de). 2007-04-15. http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2007/11079.html.
* "National Government Denial of Climate Change and State and Local Public Health Action in a Federalist System". American Journal of Public Health 108 (S2): S112–. 2018-04-26. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304395. PMID 29698096.

## External links

* "FUD - Fear Uncertainty Doubt". wyona pictures. 2005. http://www.wyonapictures.com/en/fud/index.html.

* v
* t
* e

Disinformation

Types|

* Alternative facts
* Big lie
* Bullshit
* Cherry picking
* Circular reporting
* Deception
* Deplatforming
* Doublespeak
* Echo chamber
* Euphemistic misspeaking
* Euromyth
* Factoid
* Fake news
* by country
* online
* Fallacy
* False accusation
* False flag
* Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
* Filter bubble
* Gaslighting
* Half-truth
* Hoax
* Ideological framing
* Internet manipulation
* Media manipulation
* Potemkin village
* Post-truth politics
* Propaganda
* Quote mining
* Scientific fabrication
* Smearing
* Social bot
* Spin
* View from nowhere
* Whataboutism
* Yellow journalism

Books|

* Disinformation by Ion Mihai Pacepa
* Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy
* The KGB and Soviet Disinformation
* The Case for Latvia
* Who's Who in the CIA

Operations and events|

* 1995 CIA disinformation controversy
* CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory
* Clockwork Orange plot
* Funkspiel
* Habbush letter
* Information Operations Roadmap
* Jihadunspun.com
* Jonestown conspiracy theories
* K-1000 battleship
* Media censorship and disinformation during the Gezi Park protests
* Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection
* Niger uranium forgeries
* Operation INFEKTION
* Operation Neptune
* Operation Shocker
* Operation Toucan
* Pope Pius XII and Russia
* Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
* Seat 12
* Strategy of tension
* Trolls from Olgino
* U.S. Army Field Manual 30-31B
* Russian web brigades
* Vote Leave
* Yellow rain

Opposition|

* Active Measures Working Group
* Counter Misinformation Team
* Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
* East StratCom Team
* FactCheck.org
* PolitiFact
* Snopes.com
* United States Information Agency

* v
* t
* e

Propaganda techniques

* Ad hominem
* Appeal to fear
* Atrocity propaganda
* Bandwagon effect
* Big lie
* Blood libel
* Buzzword
* Censorship
* Cherry picking
* Code word
* Disinformation
* Dog-whistle politics
* Doublespeak
* Fake news
* Framing
* Glittering generality
* Historical negationism
* Historical revisionism
* Ideograph
* Indoctrination
* Lawfare
* Loaded language
* Newspeak
* Obscurantism
* Plain folks
* Propaganda of the deed
* Public relations
* Rally 'round the flag effect
* Slogan
* Spin
* Weasel word
* Whataboutism

This article is based in part on the Jargon File, which is in the public domain.

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt&oldid=4008393"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template