World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Fear, uncertainty and doubt

Article Id: WHEBN0021143560
Reproduction Date:

Title: Fear, uncertainty and doubt  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Doubt, ERS 3500 and ERS 2500 series, Fear, Doubt Is Their Product, Halloween documents
Collection: Computer Jargon, Doubt, Fear, Marketing Techniques, Microsoft Criticisms and Controversies, Propaganda Techniques
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Fear, uncertainty and doubt

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry but has since been used more broadly.[3] FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.


  • Definition 1
  • Contemporary examples 2
    • Microsoft 2.1
    • SCO v. IBM 2.2
    • Apple 2.3
  • Security industry and profession 3
  • Non-computer uses 4
    • 2004 U.S. Presidential Election 4.1
    • Caltex 4.2
    • Clorox 4.3
    • Food Babe 4.4
    • Further reading 4.5
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7


The term appeared in other contexts as far back as the 1920s.[4][5] A similar formulation "doubts fears and uncertainties" reaches back to 1965.[6] By 1975, the term was already appearing abbreviated as FUD in marketing and sales contexts:[7]

FUD was first defined with its specific current meaning by Eric S. Raymond writes:[9]

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 result is that many companies' IT departments buy software that they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.

Contemporary examples


Although originally associated with IBM, from the 1990s on the term became most often associated with software industry giant Microsoft. Roger Irwin said:[10] In 1996, Caldera, Inc. accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practises, including issuing vaporware announcements, creating FUD, and excluding competitors from participating in beta-test programs in order to destroy competition in the DOS market.[11][12] One of the claims was related to having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6.0 although there were no technical reasons for it not to work.[11][13] This was caused by the so called AARD code, some encrypted piece of code, which had been found in a number of Microsoft programs. The code would fake nonsensical error messages if run on DR DOS, like:[14][15] If the user chose to press C, Windows would continue to run on DR DOS without problems. While it had been already speculated in the industry that the purpose of this code was to create doubts about DR DOS' compatibility and thereby destroy the product's reputation,[14][15] internal Microsoft memos published as part of the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case later revealed that the specific focus of these tests was in fact DR DOS:[16] At one point, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates sent a memo to a number of employees, reading Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: In 2000, Microsoft settled the lawsuit out-of-court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be $280m.[18]

At around the same time frame, the leaked internal Microsoft "Halloween documents" stated "OSS [Open Source Software] is long-term credible... [therefore] FUD tactics cannot be used to combat it."[19] Open source software, and the GNU/Linux community in particular, are widely perceived as frequent targets of Microsoft FUD:

  • Statements about the "viral nature"[20] 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.[21]
  • Statements that Windows 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 on a PC.[22][23]
  • Statements that "If an open source software solution breaks, who's gonna fix it?"[24]


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. IBM argued in its counterclaim that SCO is spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".[25]

Magistrate Judge Wells wrote (and Judge 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.' "[26]

Regarding the matter, Darl 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, June 13 [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."[27]

SCO stock skyrocketed from under $3 a share to over $20 in a matter of weeks in 2003. (It later dropped to around[28] $1.20—then crashed to under 50 cents on August 13, 2007, in the aftermath of a ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights). [29]


Apple's claim that iPhone jailbreaking could potentially allow hackers to crash cell phone towers was described by von Lohmann, a representative of the EFF as a "kind of theoretical threat...more FUD than truth”.[30]

Security industry and profession

FUD is also widely recognized as a tactic used to promote the sale or implementation of security products and measures. While there are many true security threats and breaches, it is possible to find pages describing purely artificial problems. Such pages frequently contain links to the demonstrating source code that does not point to any valid location and sometimes even links that "will execute malicious code on your machine regardless of current security software", leading to pages without any executable code.

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.[31]

Non-computer uses

2004 U.S. Presidential Election

FUD is now often used in non-computer contexts with the same meaning. For example, in Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.[32]


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 destabilise 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.[33][34][35]


More recently, Clorox was the subject of both consumer and industry criticism for advertising its GreenWorks line of allegedly environmentally friendly cleaning products using the slogan, "Finally, Green Works."[36] 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.[37] 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.[38]

Food Babe

Vani Hari, also known on her blog as the "Food Babe", was called "the FUD Babe" by British skeptical blogger Guy Chapman due to the questionable nature of her advice.[39]

Further reading

According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor",[40][41] and "weapons of mass destruction".[42]

See also


  1. ^ Harris, Rhonda (1998). The Complete Sales Letter Book. Armonk: Sharpe Professional.  
  2. ^ The term FUD is also alternatively rendered as "Fear Uncertainty and Disinformation". See e.g., Jansen, Erin (2002). Netlingo. Ojai.: NetLingo.   p. 179
  3. ^ For example, FUD has been used to describe social dynamics in contexts where sales,  
  4. ^ "Suspicion has no place in our interchanges; it is a shield for ignorance, a sign of fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Caesar Augustus Yarbrough, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged, p. 75. The Patriotic Societies of Macon, 1920.
  5. ^ "Again he was caught in a tempest of fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Monica Mary Gardner, The Patriot Novelist of Poland, Henryk Sienkiewicz, p. 71. J.M. Dent ; E.P. Dutton & Co, 1926.
  6. ^ "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; ..." William Payne, A practical discourse of repentance, rectifying the mistakes about it, especially such as lead either to despair or presumption: ..., p. 557. S. Smith, 1965.
  7. ^ Clothes (PRADS, Inc.) 10 (14-24): 19 , retrieved June 10, 2011 
  8. ^ Gene Amdahl, quoted in Eric S. Raymond, The Jargon File: FUD".
  9. ^ Eric S. Raymond, "The Jargon File: FUD".
  10. ^ Irwin, Roger (1998). "What is FUD". Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  11. ^ a b c d Susman, Stephen D.; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Southwick, James T.; Susman, Harry P.; Folse III, Parker C.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matt; McCune, Phil; Engel, Lynn M.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E. (April 1999). "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" (Court document). Caldera Inc. Archived from the original on 1999. Retrieved 2013-05-12. 
  12. ^ Susman, Stephen D.; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Susman, Harry P.; Southwick, James T.; Folse III, Parker C.; Borchers, Timothy K.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matthew R.; Engel, Lynn M.; McCune, Philip S.; Locker, Lawrence C.; Wheeler, Max D.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E. (May 1999). "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 Judgement on plaintiff's "Technological Tying" claim" (Court document). Caldera Inc. Archived from the original on 1999-05. Retrieved 2013-10-05. 
  13. ^ Ball, Lyle (1999-04-28). "Caldera submits evidence to counter Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgement" (Press release). Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 1999-05. Retrieved 2013-10-05. 
  14. ^ a b c Schulman, Andrew (September 1993). "Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code - A serious message--and the code that produced it". Dr. Dobbs Journal. Archived from the original on 2005-12-10. Retrieved 2013-10-05. 
  15. ^ a b c Schulman, Andrew;  
  16. ^ Lea, Graham (1999-11-05). "How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS - Real bear-traps, and spurious errors".  
  17. ^ a b Goodin, Dan (1999-04-28). "Microsoft emails focus on DR-DOS threat". CNET News. Retrieved 2008-08-21. 
  18. ^ "Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgement in Novell WordPerfect Case". Groklaw. 2009-11-23. Retrieved 2011-10-22. 
  19. ^ Open Source Initiative. "Halloween I: Open Source Software (New?) Development Methodology"
  20. ^ Press release from Microsoft which has viral nature of open-source quote
  21. ^ Parloff, Roger (2007-05-14). "Microsoft takes on the free world".  .
  22. ^ "'"Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading. BBC News. August 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-25. 
  23. ^ "Linux 10 times more expensive? Get the facts, watchdog tells Microsoft".  
  24. ^ Protalinski, Emil (2010). "Microsoft posts video of customers criticizing OpenOffice". Retrieved 2010-10-14. 
  25. ^ The SCO Group v IBM – answer to amended complaint and counterclaims (Undecided, U.S. District Court – Utah, Kimball J., filed 6 August 2004) Section E, paragraph 22
  26. ^ The SCO Group v IBM – ORDER GRANTING IN PART IBM'S MOTION TO LIMIT SCO's CLAIMS (Undecided, U.S. District Court – Utah, Kimball J., filed 6 August 2004) Section IV, paragraphs 33,34
  27. ^ McBride, Darl. "Show Person". Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  28. ^ "SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO GRP INC (THE)".  
  29. ^ "Investors bailing on SCO stock, SCOX plummets".  
  30. ^ Kravets, David (2009-07-28). "iPhone Jailbreaking Could Crash Cellphone Towers, Apple Claims". Wired. 
  31. ^ "The FUD Factor". 
  32. ^ "The Anti-Kerry FUD". The Blog That Goes Ping. 2004-10-30. Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  33. ^ Lilienthal, Hayden (28 April 2004). "New deal helps to heal Caltex wounds". EnergyNewsPremium. 
  34. ^ "Caltex 'bully' memo breached policy".  
  35. ^ Benns, Matthew (January 4, 2004). "Caltex in court over Woolies deal". Sydney Morning Herald. 
  36. ^ DeBare, Ilana (January 14, 2008). "Clorox introduces green line of cleaning products".  
  37. ^ Tennery, Amy (April 22, 2009). "4 'green' claims to be wary of".  
  38. ^ "NAD Tells Clorox to Clean Up Ads". August 17, 2008. Retrieved February 5, 2010. 
  39. ^ Guy Chapman (November 16, 2014). "Food Babe: Serving up misinformation and rancid advice". Retrieved November 28, 2014. 
  40. ^ Isenberg, David (January 3, 2000). "Electronic Pearl Harbor? More Hype Than Threat". Cato Institute. 
  41. ^ Clayton, Mark (December 7, 2012). Cyber Pearl Harbor': Could future cyberattack really be that devastating?"'". The Christian Science Monitor. 
  42. ^ "Dirty Bomber? Dirty Justice".  

External links

  • FUDZilla (archived project on Libervis)
  • FUD (or the original page on the Internet Archive)
  • Business article: Don't let FUD kill your business goals

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

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.